PROCEEDINGS 


OF  THE 


m 


T 


m 


J  \J 


71 


TO  SECURE  THE 


RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT 


i.f 

OF  THE 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES, 


Held  tn  New  York,  Feb.  2 G  &  27,  1873. 


WITH  AN  ACCOUNT  OF 


The  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  Movement. 


ts 


JKI70  . 

.1673 

NEW  YORK: 


JOHN  POLHEMUS,  PRINTER,  102  NASSAU  ST. 
1873. 


**1 r 


V  1 

V 


PROCEEDINGS 

•  OF  THE 


ational 


Convention 


TO  SECURE  THE 


RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT 


OF  THE 


CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  UNITED  STATES. 


Held  in  New  York,  Feb.  26  and  27,  “1873. 


With  an  Account  of  the  Origin  and  Progress  of  the  Movement. 


NEW  YORK  : 

John  Polhemus,  Printer,  102  Nassau  St. 

1873. 


CONTENTS 


Page. 

INTR  OR  UCTION- — History  of  the  Movement  to  secure  the 

Religious  Amendment  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  United '■States _ iii-xvi 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  CONVENTION: 

Call  for  the  Convention _ . _  1 

Temporary  Organization _ _• _  4 

Permanent  Organization _ 10 

Letters  to  the  Convention _  38 

Resolutions  adopted _ 41 

General  Secretary's  Report _ , _  41 

Report  of  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  National  Asso- 

ciatio7i - 44 

Report  of  Eyirollment  Committee _  49 

Subscription  for  the  Treasury _ 50 

.  Election  of  Officers  of  the  National  Association _  76 

ADDRESSES  BEFORE  THE  CONVENTION: 

By  the  Rev.  D.  McAllister — The  Religious  Amend¬ 
ment  Movement  Just ,  Seasonable ,  and  Necessary _  5 

By  the  Hoy.  F.  R.  Brunot,  President  of  the  Co7ive7ition.  '  1 1 
By  Dr.  E.  R.  Craven — The  Religious  Defect  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  _ 15 

By  Dr.  J.  H.  McIlvaine . . . . .  22 

By  Dr.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  Sr _ _ _  24 

By  President  A.  A.  Miner — The  Influence  of  Silence 

in  regard  to  Fundamental  Daw _ _ 27 

By  President  G.  P.  Hays — The  Influence  and  Educa¬ 
tion  of  Public  Sentiment _  32 

By  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Lytle  _ *45 

By  the  Rev.  J.  Hogg _ 47 

By  President  H.  II.  George _ _ 51 

By  the  Rev.  Dr.  II.  Edwards . 56 

By  Prof.  J.  R.  W.  Sloane _ _ 65 

By  Dr.  A.  M.  Milligan .  71 


HISTORY  OF  THE  MOVEMENT 

TO  SECURE  THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT 

OF  THE 

CONSTITUTION  of  the  united  states. 


BY  T.  P.  STEVENSON, 

Corresponding  Secretary  of  the  National  Association. 


The  reader  of  the  arguments  presented  in  the  following  pages  will  naturally 
desire  some  information  concerning  the  history  of  the  movement,  the  auspices 
under  which  it  arose,  and  the  methods  by  which  it  has  been  prosecuted  during 
the  ten  years  of  its  history. 

The  religious  defect  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  not  unno¬ 
ticed  at  the  beginning.  Luther  Martin,  a  delegate  from  Maryland  to  the  Con¬ 
vention  which  framed  it,  said  :  ‘  ‘  There  were  some  of  the  members  so 
unfashionable  as  to  think  that  a  belief  of  the  existence  of  a  Deity,  and  of  a 
future  state  of  rewards  and  punishments,  would  be  some  security  for  the  good 
conduct  of  our  rulers,  and  that  in  a  Christian  country  it  would  be  at  least 
decent  to  hold  some  distinction  between  the  professors  of  Christianity  and 
downright  infidelity  and  paganism.”*  # 

On  the  28th  of  October,  1789,  the  First  Presbytery  Eastward  in  Massachusetts 
and  New  Hampshire  presented  a  loyal  and  patriotic  address  to  President 
Washington,  in  which,  after  expressing  their  satisfaction  in  beholding  how 
easily  the  entire  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  man  first  entrusted  with  the 
administration  of  the  new  Constitution  had  eradicated  every  remaining  objec¬ 
tion  to  its' form,  they  add :  “Among  these  [objections]  we  never  considered 
the  want  of  a  religious  test — that  grand  engine  of  persecution  in  every  tyrant’s 
hand — but  we  should  not  have  been  alone  in  rejoicing  to  have  seen  some  ex¬ 
plicit  acknowledgment  of  the  only  true  God  and  Jesus  Christ,  whom  He  hath 
sent,  inserted  somewhere  in  the  Magna  Charta  of  our  country.” 

In  the  early  part  of  the  present  century  the  eminent  Dr.  John  M.  Mason,  of 
New  York,  employed  these  words:  “  One  would  imagine  that  no  occasion  of 
making  a  pointed  and  public  acknowledgment  of  the  Divine  benignity  could 
have  presented  itself  so  obviously  as  the  framing  an  instrument  of  government 
which,  in  the  nature  of  things,  must  be  closely  allied  to  our  happiness  or  our 
ruin  ;  and  yet  that  very  Constitution,  which  the  singular  goodness  of  God 
enabled  us  to  establish,  does  not  so  much  as  recognize  His  being.” 


*  Genuine  Information  delivered  to  the  Legislature  of  Maryland,  by  Luther  Martin,  a  Dele¬ 
gate.  Philadelphia,  1788,  page  80. 


I 


IV 


THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


In  the  admirable  treatise  on  “  The  Oath,”  by  the  Rev.  D.  X.  Junkin,  D.  D., 
published  in  1845,  the  writer  says  :  “The  oath  of  the  President  of  the  United 
States  could  as  well  be  taken  by  a  pagan  or  a  Mohammedan  as  by  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  a  Christian  people  :  it  excludes  the  name  of  the  Supreme  Being. 
Indeed,  it  is  negatively  atheistical,  for  no  God  is  appealed  to  at  all.  In  fram¬ 
ing  many  of  our  public  formularies,  greater  care  seems  to  have  been  taken  to 
adapt  them  to  the  prejudices  of  the  infidel  few  than  to  the  consciences  of  the 
Christian  millions.  In  these  things  the  minority  in  our  country  has  hitherto 
managed  to  govern  the  majority.  *  *  We  look  on  the  designed  omission  of  it 
[the  name  of  God  in  the  oath]  as  an  attempt  to  exclude  from  civil  affairs  Him 
who  is  the  Governor  among  the  nations.” 

These  views  have  been  intelligently  and  firmly  maintained  by  a  portion  of 
the  American  people  at  all  times  since  the  adoption  of  the  present  Constitu¬ 
tion.  The  contrast  in  this  respect  between  the  Constitution  of  the  nation 
and  the  Constitutions  of  nearly  all  the  States  did  not  escape  observation, 
and  it  was  remembered  that,  before  the  national  Constitution,  no  similar  in¬ 
strument  of  government  had  been  framed  by  any  portion  of  the  American 
people  without  an  explicit  acknowledgment  of  Almighty  God  and  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion. 

No  public  effort  to  remedy  this  defect  was  possible,  however,  while  the 
question  of  slavery  was  agitating  the  public  mind.  The  intense  feeling  en¬ 
gendered  by  that  controversy,  and  the  sensitiveness  to  any  proposal  to  change 
the  Constitution,  precluded  even  the  consideration  of  the  subject.  With  the 
war,  however,  there  came  a  change.  That  great  calamity  was  almost  uni¬ 
versally  felt  to  be  an  expression  of  the  Divine  displeasure  against  the  nation. 
The  public  conscience  was  prepared  to  welcome  any  measure  which  pro¬ 
posed  in  a  suitable  and  becoming  way  to  give  honor  to  the  God  whom  we 
had  offended,  and  express  our  feelings  of  repentance  and  our  purpose  of  reform¬ 
ation.  The  feelings  of  a  large  part  of  the  nation  were  expressed  in  the 
following  sentences  from  a  sermon  by  the  Rev.  Henry  A.  Boardman,  of  Phila¬ 
delphia,  in  the  year  1862:  “  We  must  ‘  search  and  try  our  ways,  and  turn  again 
to  ,the  Lord.’  The  loss  of  His  favor  will  explain  everything  that  has  hap¬ 
pened.  And  the  grand  aim  should  be  to  learn  how  we  have  lost  His  favor, 
and  by  what  means  we  can  regain  it.  This  is  too  large  a  theme  to  be  discussed 
within  the  compass  of  a  few  pages,  but  there  is  one  feature  of  our  Government 
too  closely  connected  with  this  question,  and  too  conspicuous,  to“  be  passed 
by  in  silence.  I  refer,  as  you  will  readily  suppose — for  the  topic  is  a  familiar 
one — to. the  absence  of  any  adequate  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  and 
the  religion  of  which  He  is  the  author  and  object,  in  our  Constitution,  and  in 
the  practical  administration  of  our  political  system.  *  *  *  Our  national 
charter  pays  no  homage  to  the  Deity.  His  name  does  not  once  occur  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States.  And  as  if  to  confound  the  charity  which 
would  refer  this  omission  to  some  accidental  agency,  the  same  atheism  is  re¬ 
peated  and  perpetuated  in  another  form  no  less  inexcusable.  The  coinage  of 
money  is  one  of  the  inalienable  prerogatives  of  political  sovereignty.  The 
solemnity  attached  to  the  function  has  been  recognized  by  most  nations,  an¬ 
cient  and  modern,  Jewish  and  Christian,  Mohammedan  and  Pagan.  You 
have  but  to  look  at  the  money  of  any  people  to  know  at  what  altars  they 
worshipped.  But  the  coinage  of  the  United  States  is  without  a  God.  *  *  * 
Has  not  the  time  come  to  make  our  formal  national  confession  of  this  fun- 


ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT.  V 

damental  truth — to  impress  it  on  our  coinage,  to  insert  it  (peradventure  it 
may  not  be  too  late)  as  the  keystone  of  our  riven  and  tottering  Constitu¬ 
tion.” 

A  Convention  for  prayer  and  Christian  conference  with  special  reference  to 
the  state  of  the  country,  had  been  called  to  meet  at  Xenia,  Ohio,  on  the  3d  day 
of  February,  1803.  When  it  assembled,  it  was  found  to  include  representatives 
from  eleven  different  denominations  of  Christians,  and  from  seven  of  the  States 
of  the  Union.  An  unusual  degree  of  patriotic  and  religious  fervor  pervaded  all  its 
exercises.  It  was  therefore  an  auspicious  hour  for  the  consideration  of  the 
subject  when  on  the  second  day  of  its  sessions,  Mr.  John  Alexander,  then  of 
Xenia,  now  of  Philadelphia,  quietly  laid  on  the  table  of  the  Convention  a 
paper  calling  attention  to  this  defect,  and  proposing  that  the  Convention  should 
take  such  steps  as  might  seem  proper  toward  its  correction.  With  a  view  to 
bring  the  subject  more  definitely  before  the  Convention,  a  form  of  amendment 
to  the  Preamble  of  the  Constitution  was  suggested,  which  embodied  all  the 
principles  which  have  been  advocated  in  the  course  of  the  movement,  and 
which  has  not  since  been  materially  changed. 

Notwithstanding  some  objections  that  were  offered,  the  paper  was  received 
with  great  unanimity,  and  referred  to  a  Committee  representing  all  denomina¬ 
tions  of  Christians  gathered  in  the  Convention,  and  the  report  of  this  Commit¬ 
tee,  approving  the  spirit  and  design  of  the  paper,  and  endorsing  the  action 
which  it  proposed,  was  adopted.  From  these  facts  it  will  be  seen  that  the 
present  movement  is  the  fruit  of  intelligent  and  mature  conviction,  confirmed  by 
long  reflection  and  careful  study  of  the  spirit  and  history  of  our  institutions, 
and  quickened  into  active  effort  in  an  hour  of  deep  religious  and  patriotic  feel¬ 
ing.  The  eleven  denominations  of  Christians,  represented  in  the  Convention, 
are  witnesses  of  the  unsectarian  character  of  the  movement.  The  devout  and 
prayerful  spirit  which  marked  its  birth,  has  never  ceased  to  be  among  its  rqost 
noticeable  characteristics. 

The  first  National  Convention  to  secure  this  Amendment  was  held  in  Alle¬ 
gheny,  on  the  27th  of  January,  1864.  It  was  an  earnest,  prayerful  and  encour¬ 
aging  meeting.  Its  action  was  as  follows :  * 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Resolved,  1.  That  we  deem  it  a  matter  of  paramount  interest  to  the  life  and  pros¬ 
perity,  and  permanency  of  our  Nation,  that  its  Constitution  be  so  amended  as  fully  to 
express  the  Christian  national  character. 

2.  That  we  are  encouraged  by  the  success  attending  the  labors  of  the  friends  of  this 
movement  to  persevere,  in  the  hope  that,  with  the  blessing  of  God,  this  effort  will 
speedily  result  in  the  consummation  of  this  great  object. 

3.  That  in  the  late  proclamations  of  His  Excellency,  the  President  of  the  United 
States,  recommending  the  observance  of  days  of  National  fasting,  humiliation  and 
prayer,  (as  suggested  by  the -Senate  of  the  United  States,)  for  the  purpose  of  confess¬ 
ing  our  National  sins,  which  have  provoked  the  Divine  displeasure,  and  of  imploring 
forgiveness  through  Jesus  Christ — and  also  days  of  National  thanksgiving  for  the  pur¬ 
pose  of  making  grateful  acknowledgment  of  God’s  mercies — we  have  pleasing  evi¬ 
dence  that  God  is  graciously  inclining  the  hearts  of  those  who  are  in  authority  over 
us,  to  recognize  His  hand  in  the  affairs  of  the  Nation,  and  to  cherish  a  sense  of  our  de¬ 
pendence  on  Him. 

4.  That  the  following  Memorial  and  petition  to  Congress  be  circulated  throughout  the 
United  States  for  signatures : 


vi 


THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


MEMORIAL  TO  CONGRESS. 

To  the  Honorable ,  the  Senate  and  House  of  Representatives ,  in  Congress  assembled  : 

We,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  respectfully  ask  your  Honorable  bodies  to  adopt 
measures  for  amending  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  as  to  read,  in  sub¬ 
stance,  as  follows : 

“We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  [humbly  acknowledging  Almighty  God  as  the 
source  of  all  authority  and  power  in  civil  government,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the 
Ruler  among  the  nations,  and  His  revealed  will  as  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,  in  order 
to  constitute  a  Christian  government]  and,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect  union,  estab¬ 
lish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquillity,  provide  for  the  common  defense,  promote  the 
general  welfare,  [and  secure  the  inalienable  rights  and  the  blessings  of  life,  liberty,  and 
the  pursuit  of  happiness  to  ourselves,  our  posterity,  and  all  the  people,*]  do  ordain 
and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America. 

“  And  further :  that  such  changes  with  respect  to  the  oath  of  office,  slavery,  and  all 
other  matters,  should  be  introduced  into  the  body  of  the  Constitution,  as  may  be 
necessary  to  give  effect  to  these  amendments  in  the  preamble.  And  we,  your  humble 
petitioners,  will  ever  pray,”  etc. 

Resolved ,  That  a  special  Committee  be  appointed  to  carry  the  Memorial  to  Wash¬ 
ington,  lay  it  before  the  President,  and  endeavor  to  get  a  special  message  to  Congress 
on  the  subject,  and  to  lay  said  Memorial  before  Congress. 

The  National  Association  to  secure  the  Religious  Amendment  to  the  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  United  States  was  organized  at  this  Convention,  with  John 
Alexander,  Esq.,  as  President ;  Zadok  Street,  Salem,  Ohio  (of  the  Society 
of  Friends),  Vice-President  ;  a  full  list  of  other  officers,  and  an  Executive  Com¬ 
mittee. 

A  large  delegation  was  appointed  to  visit  Washington,  to  urge  the  proposed 
Amendment  on  the  attention  of  President  Lincoln.  This  Committee,  embrac¬ 
ing  Professor  J.  H.  McIlvaine,  D.D.,  Princeton,  N.  J.  ;  Professor  J.  T. 
Prr^sly,  D.D.,  Penn.  ;  Rev.  John  Douglass,  D.D.,  Penn.;  Rev.  D.  C. 
Page,  D.D.,  Pa.;  Rev.  H.  H.  George,  Ohio;  Dr.  Sterrett,  Pa. ;  John 
Alexander,  Esq.,  Ohio;  Rev.  J.  S.  T.  Milligan,  Mich.;  Rev.  R.  A, 
Browne,  Pa. ;  and  Rev.  A.  M.  Milligan,  Pa.,  met  in  Willard’s  Hotel,  Wash¬ 
ington,  on  Tuesday  evening,  February  9.  The  Rev.  Dr.  Gurley,  Rev.  Dr. 
Channing,  Chaplain  of  the  U.  S.  Senate,  J.  J.  Marks,  D.D.,  Rev.  B.  F.  Morris, 
Rev.  L.  D.  Johnson,  and  Rev.  N.  K.  Crowe,  of  the  District  of  Columbia,  met 
with  the  delegation,  heard  the  address  prepared  by  Dr.  McIlvaine,  the  Chair¬ 
man  of  the  Committee,  and  gave  it  their  hearty  sanction.  Most  of  them  signed 
the  address  and  waited  on  the  President  with  the  delegation.  Through  the 
aid  of  Senator  Sherman,  of  Ohio,  an  arrangement  was  made  with  the  Presi¬ 
dent  for  an  interview  on  Wednesday,  at  3£  P.  M.,  when  the  delegation  was 
introduced  to  the  President  by  Dr.  Gurley,  and  the  Chairman  made  the  fol¬ 
lowing  address : 

ADDRESS  TO  THE  PRESIDENT. 

Mr.  President  : — The  object  for  which  we  have  taken  the  liberty  of  trespassing  a 
moment  on  your  precious  time,  can  be  explained  in  very  few  words.  We  are  the  rep¬ 
resentatives  of  a  mass  Convention  of  Christian  people,  without  distinction  of  sect  or 
denomination,  which  was  held  in  Allegheny  City,  on  the  27th  and  28th  of  January 
last ;  and  we  are  instructed  to  iay  before  your  Excellency  the  action  of  that  Con¬ 
vention. 


*  This  clause  was  dropped  after  the  Amendment  prohibiting  Slavery  was  adopted. 


origin  and  progress  of  the  movement. 


Vll 

After  reading  the  resolutions  of  the  Convention  and  the  Memorial  to  Con¬ 
gress,  embodying  the  proposed  Amendment,  the  address  continued  as  follows : 

We  are  encouraged,  Mr.  President,  to  hope  that  you  will  give  the  great  object  for 
which  we  pray,  your  cordial  and  powerful  support,  because  you  have  already  shown, 
by  many  significant  acts  of  your  administration,  that  the  principle  on  which  it  rests  is 
dear  to  your  heart.  This  principle  is  our  national  responsibility  to  God,  which  you 
have  expressly  and  repeatedly  recognized.  We  remember  that  when,  under  one  of  your 
predecessors,  an  anti-Christian  power  had  refused  to  treat  with  the  United  States,  on 
the  ground  that  we  were  a  Christian  nation,  the  objection  was  removed  by  the  authori¬ 
tative  statement  that  we,  as  a  nation,  had  no  religion;  also,  that  several  of  your  pre¬ 
decessors  refused,  when  earnestly  importuned,  to  appoint  days  of  national  fasting  and 
thanksgiving,  for  the  same  reason,  whilst  you,  sir,  within  the  space  of  a  single  year, 
have  thrice,  by  solemn  proclamation,  called  us  to  either  national  fasting,  humiliation 
and  prayer,  for  our  many  and  grievous  sins,  especially  our  sin  of  forgetting  God,  or  to 
national  thanksgiving  for  His  unspeakable  mercies. 

You,  moreover,  as  no  other  of  our  Chief  Magistrates  ever  did,  have  solemnly  re¬ 
minded  us  of  the  redeeming  grace  of  our  blessed  Saviour,  and  of  the  authority  of  the 
Holy  Scriptures  over  us  as  a  people.  By  such  acts  as  these,  you  have  awakened  a 
hope  in  the  Christian  people  of  this  land,  that  you  represent  them  in  feeling  and  want 
of  a  distinct  and  plain  recognition  of  the  Divine  authority  in  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States.  For  we  hold  it  most  certain  truth,  that  nations,  as  such,  and  not  indi¬ 
viduals  alone,  are  the  subjects  of  God’s  moral  government,  are  responsible  to  Him, 
and  by  Him  are  graciously  rewarded  for  their  obedience,  or  justly  punished  for  their 
disobedience  of  His  divine  laws. 

We  believe  also,  that  our  civil  and  religious  liberties,  our  free  institutions,  and  all 
our  national  prosperity,  power  and  glory,  are  mercies  and  blessings  derived  from  God 
to  us  through  the  channel  of  the  Christian  religion.  Notwithstanding,  either  from 
inadvertency,  or  following  some  Godless  theory  of  civil  government,  we  have  omitted 
even  the  mention  of  His  blessed  name  in  the  most  significant  and  highest  act  of  the 
nation. 

We  believe  that  in  thus  leaving  God  out  of  our  political  system,  we  have  grievously 
sinned  against  Him,  have  brought  upon  ourselves  and  children  His  just  displeasure, 
opened  the  flood-gates  of  that  political  corruption  which  is  the  mediate,  and  given 
occasion  to  that  prodigious  development  of  the  spirit  of  oppression  and  injury  to  the 
negro  race,  which  is  the  immediate  source  of  our  present  calamities  and  sorrows. 
We  believe,  therefore,  that  it  is  our  first  duty  to  repent  of  this  and  all  our  national 
sins,  and  to  return  to  our  obligations  as  a  Christian  people,  by  acknowledging  the  true 
God  as  our  God  in  our  fundamental  and  organic  law,. in  order  that  we  may  consistently 
implore  His  merciful  interposition  in  our  behalf,  to  give  victory  to  our  national  arms, 
and  success  to  the  ^national  cause ;  to  establish  the  unity  of  the  nation  and  the 
authority  of  the  Government,  now  assaulted  and  shattered  by  a  horrible  rebellion. 
We  ask  for  no  union  of  Church  and  State — that  is  a  thing  which  we  utterly  repudiate  ; 
we  ask  for  nothing  inconsistent  with  the  largest  religious  liberty,  or  the  rights  of 
conscience  in  any  man.  We  represent  no  sectarian  or  denominational  object,  but  one 
in  which  all  who  bear Ithe  Christian  name,  and  ail  who  have  any  regard  for  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion,  can  cordially  agree  ;  and  one  to  secure  which  we  are  persuaded  that  any 
lawful  and  wise  movement  would  call  forth  an  overwhelming  public  sentiment  in  its 
support. 

We,  therefore,  do  earnestly  hope  that  you,  qur  beloved  Chief  Magistrate,  will  not  be 
indifferent  in  our  prayer.  For,  by  what  you  have  already  done  in  this  cause,  and  by 
your  integrity,  firmness  and  excellent  wisdom,  (divinely  guided  as  we  believe  it  has 
been,  and  pray  that  it  may  ever  continue  to  be,)  under  the  terrible  responsibility  laid 
upon  you  in  this,  the  darkest  hour  of  our  country’s  peril  and  rebuke,  you  have  won 
the  confidence  and  affection  of  the  Christian  people  of  this  land,  beyond  all  your  pre¬ 
decessors,  save  only  the  Father  of  his  Country.  Knowing,  then,  the  respect  and 


Vlll 


THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


deference  with  which  your  sage  counsels  are  listened  to  by  the  whole  people,  and 
deeming  the  present  time  and  occasion  most  opportune,  we  are  persuaded  that  if  you 
will  give  this  movement  your  favor  and  support, -it  will  be  successful,  and  thus  you 
will  place  yourself  .in  the  hearts  of  the  present,  and  of  all  future  generations,  as  one 
of  the  greatest  benefactors  of  your  country.  For,  having  inaugurated  those  measures 
which  aim  to  right,  so  far  as  that  is  possible,  our  great  national  wrong  committed 
against  man,  you  will  have  wielded  that  vast  influence  with  which  you  have  been 
clothed  by  Divine  Providence  and  by  the  voice  of  the  people,  to  right,  so  far  as  that 
can  be  done,  that  great  wrong  which  as  a  nation  we  have  committed  against  God,  in 
leaving  Him  out  of  our  political  system. 

The  President  replied  as  follows  : 

Gentlemen  : — The  general  aspect  of  your  movement,  I  cordially  approved  In  regard 
to  particulars,  I  must  ask  time  to  deliberate,  as  the  work  of  amending  the  Constitution 
should  not  be  done  hastily .  I  will  carefully  examine  your  paper,  in  order  more  fully  to 
comprehend  its  contents  than  is  possible  from  merely  hearing  it  read,  and  will  take 
such  action  upon  it  as  my  responsibility  to  our  Maker  and  our  country  demands, 

Ihe  General  Assembly  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  (O.  S.),  in  session  at  New¬ 
ark,  in  May,  1864,  in  answer  to  an  overture  on  the  subject  from  the  Synod  of 
the  Pacific,  adopted  the  following  preamble  and  resolutions  offered  by  Dr. 
Musgrave  : 

Whereas,  Almighty  God,  the  God  of  nations,  is  the  head  and  source  of  all  authority 
and  power  in  civil  government,  and  nations  as  such  are  the  subjects  of  His  moral  laws, 
and  His  revealed  will  is  the  supreme  law  of  national  life  ; 

11  hereas,  The  Christian  and  loyal  people  of  our  country  are  everywhere  beseech¬ 
ing  God  to  interpose  tor  our  deliverance  as  a  nation,  from  the  assauTts  of  a  most 
groundless  and  wicked  rebellion,  and  to  establish  and  maintain  the  national  unity  and 
authority ;  and 

\\  hereas,  Resolutions  have  already  passed  the  Senate  of  the  United  States,  and  are 
pending  in  the  House  ol  Representatives,  recommending  the  Amendment  of  the 
National  Constitution  in  several  other  particulars  ;  therefore, 

Iiesolved,  That  it  is  our  solenmn  national  duty  so  to  amend  our  fundamental  and 
oiganic  law,  that  the  preamble  ot  the  National  Constitution  shall  read  in  substance  as 
follows  :  Vi  e,  the  people  of  the  United  States,”  &c.,  (in  the  words  of  the  proposed 
Amendment.) 

Resolved*,  That  this  General  Assembly  recommend  to  all  the  people  in  the  congrega¬ 
tions  under  its  care,  to  memorialize.  Congress  upon  this  subject. 


As  the  Allegheny  Convention  was  an  intermediate  meeting  to  effect  a  per¬ 
manent  organization,  it  was  determined  to  call  the  First  Annual  Meeting  of 
the  Association  in  Philadelphia,  in  July  folloAving.  It  was  held  accordingly 
in  the  Eighth  street  Methodist  Episcopal  Church,  on  Wednesday  and  Thurs¬ 
day  ,  the  7th  and  8tli  days  of  that  month.  Though  the  meeting  was  not  large, 
the  character  and  position  of  those  present,  and  the  interest  manifested  in  the 
cause  .were  exceedingly  encouraging.  Addresses  were  made  by  the  Rev. 
D.  C.  Eddy,  D.  D.,  of  the  Tabernacle  Baptist  Church,  and  the  Rev.  J.  H.  A. 
Bomberger,  D.  D.,  of  the  German  Reformed  Church.  'Dr.  Eddy  was  elected 
President  of  the  Association  for  the  ensuing  year.  The  Revs.  T.  P.  Stevenson  . 
and  W.  W.  Spear,  D.  D.,  and  Wm.  Getty,  Esq.,  were  appointed  a  Committee 
on  Correspondence,  and  were  directed  to  prepare  an  address  to  the  public  in 


ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS  OE  THE  MOVEMENT. 


IX 


behalf  of  the  cause.  From  this  address,  the  first  issued  after  the  organization 
of  the  Asssociation,  we  extract  the  following  passages  : 

Many  Christians  are  convinced  that  we  have  failed  to  give  our  civil  institutions  that 
definite  and  practical  religious  character  which  is  worthy  of  a  Christian  people  and 
essential  to  national  permanence  and  prosperity.  We  are  not  aware  that  in  the  for¬ 
mation  of  our  Government,  by  any  act  or  any  declaration,  we  recognized  the  divine 
origin  of  the  institution  then  set  up.  While  we  have  distinctly  asserted,  and  jealously 
maintained,  the  right  of  the  people  to  set  up  forms  of  government  for  themselves,  we 
have  not  acknowledged — it  would  seem  we  have  not  felt — -that  the  constitution  of  gov¬ 
ernment  is  an  act  of  obedience  to  God,  and  that  all  legitimate  civil  authority  is  ulti¬ 
mately  derived  from  Him.  Neither  have  we  recognized  the  moral  responsibility  of 
the  nation  in  its  organic  character,  nor  its  obligation  to  accept  and  obey  the  will  of 
God  revealed  in  His  word.  And  this  defect  is  made  painfully  conspicuous  by  the  omis¬ 
sion  of  the  name  of  God  even  from  the  form  of  oath  prescribed  in  the  Constitution, 
which  simply  reads,  “I  do  solemnly  swear  or  affirm.” 

THESE  AMENDMENTS  RIGHT  AND  NECESSARY. 

We  respectfully  submit  tcf  your  consideration,  whether  these  amendments  are  not 
simply  an  appropriate  recognition  of  the  relations  which  all  just  human  authority  sus¬ 
tains  to  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  Universe.  Is  not  anything  less  than  this  wholly 
inconsistent  with  those  relations  ?  We  propose  the  recognition  of  God,  not  only  be¬ 
cause  He  is  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  all  men  and  al.  organizations,  but  because  it  is  He 
who  has  given  the  institution  of  civil  government  toman,  and  the  just  authority  of  the 
magistrate  is  derived  from  Him.  “  There  is  no  power  but  of  God.  The  powers  that 
be  are  ordained  of  God.”  It  is  surely  fitting  that  a  constitution  framed  by  a  Christian 
people  should  recognize  a  higher  source  of  civil  authority  than  the  mere  will  or  con¬ 
sent  of  the  citizen.  And  iu  presenting  civil  government  thus,  as  a  divine  institution, 
we  enforce,  by  the  highest  possible  sanctions,  its  claims  upon  the  respect  and  obe¬ 
dience  of  the  citizen.  The  true  strength  of  a  government  lies  in  the  conscientious 
regard  felt  for  it  as  the  ordinance  of  God.  Thus  only  is  the  magistrate  clothed  with 
his  true  authority,  and  the  majesty  of  the  law'  suitably  preserved.  “  The  sanctions  of 
religion,”  says  De  Witt  Clinton,  “  compose  tile  foundations  of  good  government.” 

The  moral  character  of  a  government  has  a  powerful  reflex  influence  on  the  moral 
character  of  the  people.  Especially  is  this  felt  in  a  popular  government,  where  the 
people  are  brought  into  constant  contact  with  it,  study  its  history,  admire  its  pro¬ 
visions,  and  drink  deeply  of  its  spirit.  An  irreligious  government  begets  an  irrelig¬ 
ious  people.  It  must  be  deplored  that  in  a  Constitution  so  universally  and  so  justly 
admired  and  loved  and  studied  by  the  American  people,  there  is  nothing  to  turn  the 
mind  of  the  nation  to  God,  to  inculcate  reverence  for  the  authority  of  His  Son  or  re¬ 
spect  for  His  word. 


JUSTIFIED  BY  OUR  OWN  HISTORY. 

The  principles  which  we  here  present  are  not  new'-  in  American  politics.  We  are 
able  to  plead  many  precedents,  which  must  have  the  weight  of  authority  with  the 
American  people.  Our  country  was  originally  settled  by  men  of  high  religious  char¬ 
acter,  whose  only  motive  in  seeking  a  home  in  the  wilderness  w'as  the  freedom  and 
safety  of  religion,  and  the  glory  of  God.  They  left  the  impress  of  their  character  on 
the  civil  institutions  which  they  set  up.  In  the  cabin  of  the  Mayflower,  and  before 
landing  on  Plymouth  Rock,  the  Pilgrims  agreed  upon  a  constitution  of  civil  govern¬ 
ment,  in  which  they  declared  “the  glory  of  God  and  the  advancement  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  faith”  to  be  among  the  ends  of  their  organization.  This  Constitution,  begin¬ 
ning:  “In  the  name  of  God,  Amen,’'  invokes,  says  Webster,  “  a  religious  sanction 
and  the  authority  of  God  on  their  civil  obligations.” 

The  Constitution  of  the  first  government  established  in  the  limits  of  the  present 
State  of  Connecticut,  declares  that  “  where  a  people  are  gathered  together,  the 


X  THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

Word  of  God  requires  that  there  should  be  an  orderly  and  decent  government  estab¬ 
lished  according  to  God.” 

The  first  form  of  government  that  existed  in  Pennsylvania  asserted  “  the  origina¬ 
tion  and  descent  of  all  human  power  from  God,”  and  the  first  legislative  act  of  the 
Colony,  passed  at  Chester  in  1662,  recognized  the  Christian  religion,  while  it  estab¬ 
lished  liberty  of  conscience,  and  declared  that  the  glory  of  God  and  the  good  of  man¬ 
kind  are  the  reason  and  end  of  government,  which  is,  therefore,  a  venerable  ordinance 
of  God.  And  the  Supreme  Court  of  Pennsylvania,  in  1824,  on  a  trial  for  blasphemy, 
referring  to  this  early  statute,  says :  “  Christianity — general  Christianity — is  and  al¬ 
ways  has  been  a  part  of  the  common  law  of  Pennsylvania  ;  not  Christianity  founded 
on  particular  tenets,  nor  an  established  Church,  with  tithes  and  spiritual  courts,  but 
Christianity  with  liberty  of  conscience  to  all  men.” 

The  State  Constitutions  of  the  era  of  the  Revolution  present  the  same  characteris¬ 
tics.  In  1780,  the  Constitution  of  Massachusetts  declared  “  that  the  happiness  of  a 
people,  and  thd  good  order  and  preservation  of  civil  government,  essentially  depend 
on  piety,  religion,  and  morality.”  And  in  the  Convention  of  that  State,  met  in  1820,  to 
revise  the  Constitution,  Mr.  Webster  said  :  “  I  am  clearly  of  opinion  that  we  should 
not  strike  out  all  recognition  of  the  Christian  religion.  I  am  desirous  that  in  so 
solemn  a  transaction  as  the  establishment  of  a  Constitution  we  should  express  our 
attachment  to  Christianity— not  indeed  to  any  of  its  peculiar  forms,  but  to  its  general 
principles.”  But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  examples  ;  for  of  the  thirteen  States  exist¬ 
ing  originally,  not  one  had  failed  in  its  Constitution  to  make  recognition,  more  or  less 
explicit,  of  the  authority  of  God  and  the  claims  of  His  law.  And  it  is  a  matter  of  deep 
regret,  that  when  we  were  enabled,  after  the  triumphant  assertion  of  our  independ¬ 
ence,  to  set  up  a  statelier  governmental  structure,  we  left  out  that  which  constituted 
the  chief  strength  and  glory  of  those  earlier  commonwealths. 

Whatever  explanation  we  put  upon  this  unfortunate  omission,  it  cannot  be  con¬ 
sidered  presumptuous,  after  the  experience  of  nearly  three-quarters  of  a  century,  to 
propose  amendments  to  any  constitution,  however  admirable  and  beneficent.  It  has 
already  been  amended  in  some  particulars.  The  present  rebellion  has  led  to  a  gen¬ 
eral  conviction  that  additional  amendments  are  necessary  to  secure  universal  liberty, 
and  prevent  even  the  possible  recurrence  of  the  evils  which  we  now  suffer.  We  pro¬ 
pose  that  the  Constitution  be  made  unmistakably  Christian,  as  well  as  free. 

IN  ACCORD  WITH  OUR  NATIONAL  ACTS. 

There  are  well-established  features  in  our  Government,  which  are  consistent  only 
with  such  principles  as  we  seek  to  introduce  into  the  National  Constitution.  Through 
our  whole  history  chaplains  have  been  appointed  by  Congress ;  prayer  is  offered 
daily  during  its  sessions,  and  the  nation  is  called  at  intervals,  by  both  Congress  and  the 
Executive,  to  thanksgiving,  or  fasting  and  prayer.  A  recent  resolution  of  the  Senate 
on  such  an  occasion,  recognized  the  medium  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  President 
called  us  to  give  thanks  “  for  preserving  and  redeeming  grace.”  We  have  gone  to 
the  Christian  religion  for  the  only  bond  we  have  for  the  integrity  of  the  ruler,  or  the 
fidelity^  of  the  citizen — the  divine  ordinance  of  an  oath.  Such  acts  can  have  no  mean¬ 
ing,  except  as  a  nation  we  acknowledge  God.  If  such  implied  recognition  of  God  be 
proper  and  becoming,  no  objection  can  be  urged  against  the  express  recognition 
which  we  propose.  Its  necessity  will  be  felt  when  we  remember  that  one  Chief  Mag¬ 
istrate  once  refused  to  appoint  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  in  an  hour  of  public 
calamity,  because  the  nation,  in  its  Constitution,  recognized  no  God,  and  another,  in 
contracting  a  treaty  with  a  Mohammedan  power,  hesitated  not  to  declare  that  “  The 
Government  of  the  United  States  is  not,  in  any  sense,  founded  on  the  Christian  re¬ 
ligion.  It  has  in  itself  no  character  of  enmity  against  the  laws  and  religion  of  Mussul¬ 
mans.”*  Surely  our  Christian  character  should  be  so  well  defined,  that  the  Chief 
Magistrate  of  the  nation  could  not  doubt  or  ignore  it,  so  clear  that  all  the  world  should 
know  us  as  a  nation  whose  God  is  Jehovah. 

*  Treaty  with  Tripoli.  Art.  xi.  Laws  of  the  United  States,  vol.  4. 


ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT. 


xi 


In  this  movement,  prompted  by  pure  Christian  patriotism,  participated  in  by  va¬ 
rious  Christian  denominations,  all  of  whom  are  opposed  to  any  sectarian  establish¬ 
ment  of  religion,  we  invite  the  co-operation  of  every  lover  of  his  country,  and  every 
follower  of  Jesus  Christ.  We  invite  all  ministers  of  the  Gospel  to  proclaim  to  the 
nation  the  claims  of  Him  whose  ambassadors  they  are.  We  invite  the  co-operation 
of  all  ecclesiastical  bodies  in  this  effort  to  return  to  our  fathers’  God,  to  honor  our 
common  Redeemer,  and  to  secure  the  best  interests  of  our  land. 


The  next  Convention  was  held  in  the  W est  Arch  street  Presbyterian  Church 
on  the  29th  of  November,  1864.  Ex-Governor  Pollock  presided,  and  addresses 
of  unusual  interest  and  power  were  made  by  Judge  Strong,  Dr.  Edwards,  Dr. 
Mcllvaine,  Dr.  George  Junkin,  Dr.  Joel  Swartz,  (Lutheran,)  of  Baltimore,  and 
the  Rev.  Dr.  Goddard,  (Episcopal,)  of  Philadelphia.  Delegates  were  present 
from  different  parts  of  the  country,  and  altogether  it  was  a  very  encouraging 
meeting.  The  following  resolutions  were  adopted  : 

Resolved,  That  a  National  recognition  of  God,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  the  Holy 
Scriptures,  as  proposed  in  the  memorial  of  this  Association  to  Congress,  it  is  clearly  a 
Scriptural  duty,  which  it  is  National  peril  to  disregard. 

Resolved,  That,  in  consideration  of  the  general  diffusion  of  religious  intelligence, 
principles  and  institutions  throughout  our  country — in  view  of  the  many  express 
recognitions  of  Christianity  by  the  Constitutions  and  the  legislative  enactments  of  the 
several  States — and  in  view,  also,  of  the  religious  history  of  the  founders  of  this  Gov¬ 
ernment,  it  is  a  striking  and  solemn  fact  that  our  present  National  Constitution  is  so 
devoid  of  any  distinctive  Christian  feature,  that  one  of  our  Chief  Magistrates  once  re¬ 
fused  to  appoint  a  day  of  fasting  and  prayer  in  an  hour  of  public  calamity,  because 
the  Nation,  in  its  Constitution,  recognized  no  God  ;  and  another,  in  contracting  a  treaty 
with  a  Mohammedan  power,  hesitated  not  to  declare  that  “  The  Government  of  the 
United  States  is  not,  in  an3r  sense,  founded  on  the  Christian  religion.  It  has  in  itself 
no  character  of  enmity  against  the  laws  and  religion  of  Mussulmans.” 

Resolved,  That  the  measures  proposed  by  this  Association  are  not  sectional,  nor 
sectarian,  nor  partisan,  but  the  general  voice  of  Christan  patriotism,  asking  that 
which  is  right  and  wholesome,  which  is  in  keeping  with  our  antecedents,  and  which 
will  not  operate  oppressively  upon  the  conscience  of  any  citizen. 

Resolved,  That  the  state  of  the  times,  recent  and  present,  and  the  state  of  public 
sentiment,  warrants  and  encourages  the  attempt  to  secure  the  Amendment  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  which  is  proposed  by  this  Association. 


During  the  subsequent  years  the  movement  lias  been  promoted  by  the  holding 
of  annual  conventions,  the  circulation  of  petitions  to  Congress,  by  sermons, 
public  meetings,  and  addresses  before  representative  bodies,  by  the  distribu¬ 
tion  of  tracts,  and  by  the  formation  of  auxiliary  societies.  Of  these,  the 
National  Reform  Association  of  Southern  Illinois  has  had  the  longest  history, 
and  its  influence  has  been  most  widely  felt.  Of  the  conventions,  that  in  New 
York,  in  1866  ;  the  Ohio  State  Convention,  which  met  at  Columbus,  in  Febru¬ 
ary,  1869 ;  the  Northwest  Convention,  at  Monmouth,  Illinois,  in  April,  1871, 
and  the  National  Convention  at  Pittsburgh,  in  1870,  were  the  most  noteworthy. 
The  Pittsburgh  Convention  gave  a  marked  impulse  to  the  cause.  No  imme¬ 
diate  attempt  has  been  made  to  secure  action  by  Congress.  All  the  efforts  of 


Xll 


The  religious  amendment  oe  the  constitution. 


the  Association  have  been  directed  to  the  formation  of  a  right  public  sentiment 
on  the  relation  of  government  to  religion, — a  sentiment  without  which  the 
amendment  would  be  as  valueless  as  its  adoption  would  be  impossible.  For 
nearly  six  years  the  progress  of  the  movement,  and  the  labors  in  its  behalf, 
have  been  faithfully  chronicled  in  tlie  pages  of  the  Christian  Statesman,  a 
paper  established  by  the  wTriter  of  this  sketch,  and  the  Rev.  D.  McAllister,  for 
the  advocacy  of  this  cause.  Established  at  first  as  the  individual  contribution 
of  its  editors  to  the  cause,  ami  issued  only  semi-monthly,  it  has  lately  been 
enlarged  and  is  now  published  weekly,  on  an  adequate  pecuniary  foundation, 
and  with  a  large  and  steadily  increasing  circulation.  Its  pages  furnish  a  com¬ 
plete  record  of  the  movement  since  September,  1867,  and  a  full  report  of  pro¬ 
ceedings  and  addresses  at  all  principal  conventions.  Many  of  the  most 
elaborate  discussions  of  the  principle  of  national  responsibility  to  God,  and 
other  related  topics,  have  first  appeared  as  contributions  to  its  columns. 

For  convenience  of  reference,  and  to  show  the  dignity,  importance  and  con¬ 
sistency  of  the  principles  which  underlie  this  movement,  as  well  as  the  calm, 
earnest  and  judicious  spirit  in  which  it  has  been  carried,  forward,  I  append 
here  the  Calls  for  the  three  preceding  National  Conventions,  held  in  Pitts¬ 
burgh,  Philadelphia,  and  Cincinnati,  in  the  years  1870,  1871,  and  1872  respect¬ 
ively,  together  with  the  resolutions  adopted  at  each : 

CALL  FOR  THE  PITTSBURGH  CONVENTION. 

The  Constitution  of  the  United  States  makes  no  acknowledgment  of  Almighty  God, 
the  Author  of  national  existence  ;  nor  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  is  the  Ruler  of  Nations ;  nor 
of  the  Bible,  which  is  the  Fountain  of  law  and  good  morals,  as  well  as  of  religion.  This 
has,  from  the  beginning,  been  a  matter  of  deep  regret.  It  may  have  been  an  oversight, 
but  it  was,  and  it  is,  both  an  error  and  an  evil.  It  does  not  reflect  the  views  of  the  great 
majority  of  the  people  upon  these  matters.  It  dishonors  God.  It  is  inconsistent  with 
the  character  of  nearly  all  our  State  Constitutions,  and  with  all  the  precedents  of  our 
early  history.  It  has  introduced,  or  furthered,  views  and  measures  which  are  now 
struggling  for  a  baneful  ascendancy  in  State  and  national  politics:  such  as,  that  civil 
government  is  only  a  social  compact;  that  it  exists  only  for  secular  and  material,  not 
for  moral  ends;  that  Sabbath  Laws  are  unconstitutional,  and  that  the  Bible  must  be 
excluded  from  our  public  schools. 

The  National  Association,  which  has  been  formed  for  the  purpose  of  securing  such 
an  amendment  to  the  National  Constitution  as  will  remedy  this  great  defect*  indicate 
that  this  is  a  Christian  nation,  and  place  all  Christian  Laws,  Institutions  and  Usages 
in  our  Government  on  an  undeniable  legal  basis  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  nation , 
invites,  &c. 

RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED  AT  PITTSBURGH. 

Resolved,  That  civil  government  is  grounded,  like  the  family,  in  the  principles  of  the 
nature  of  man  as  a  social  creature ;  that  it  has  its  powers  and  functions  thus  deter¬ 
mined  by  the  Creator,  and  is,  therefore,  like  the  family,  an  ordinance  of  God. 

Resolved,  That  nations,  as  sovereignties,  wielding  moral  as  well  as  physical  power, 
and  having  moral  as  well  as  material  objects,  are  morally  accountable  to  God. 

Resolved,  That  the  moral  laws  under  which  nations  are  held  accountable,  include 
not  cnly  the  law  written  on  the  heart  of  man,  but  also  the  fuller  revelation  of  the 
Divine  character  and  will,  given  in  the  Bible. 

Resolved,  That  it  is  the  right  of  nations  as  such,  no  less  than  of  the  individuals  com¬ 
posing  them,  to  worship  God  according  to  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ. 

Resolved,  That  in  order  to  maintain  and  give  permanency  to  the  Christian  features 
which  have  marked  this  nation  from  its  origin,  it  is  necessafy  to  give  them  authorita¬ 
tive  sanction  in  our  organic  law. 


ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT. 


XIII 


Resolved,  That  the  proposed  amendment  of  our  National  Constitution,  so  far  from 
infringing  any  individual’s  rights  of  conscience,  or  tending  in  the  least  degree  to  a 
union  of  Church  and  State,  will  afford  the  fullest  security  against  a  corrupt  and  cor¬ 
rupting  church  establishment,  and  form  the  strongest  safeguard  of  both  the  civil  and 
religious  liberties  of  all  citizens. 

Resolved,  That  the  present  movement  is  not  sectarian,  nor  even  ecclesiastical,  bul 
that  it  is  the  assertion  of  the  right,  and  acknowledgment  of  the  duty  of  a  people  who 
believe  in  the  Christian  religion  to  govern  themselves  in  a  Christian  manner. 


CALL  FOR  THE  PHILADELPHIA  CONVENTION. 

There  is  no  political  document  so  all-important  to  the  American  statesman  and  the 
American  citizen  as  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  All  law,  all  customs,  all 
forms  of  administration  are  shaped  by  it.  Everything  in  anv  State,  corporation  or 
business  that  affects  a  citizen  in  the  remotest  degree  as  to  “  life,  liberty  and  the  pur¬ 
suit  of  happiness  ”  is  tested  by  it,  and  stands  and  works  only  as  it  agrees  with  it. 
Year  by  year  its  molding  power  is  felt.  The  President,  the  Congress  and  the  Courts 
are  coming  more  and  more  into  evident  agreement  with  what  is  there  written.  Our 
statesmen  and  our  whole  people  are  learning 'their  Americanism,  as  to  its  letter  and 
spirit,  from  that  great  instrument.  This  is  as  it  should  be.  This  was  intended  from 
the  beginning. 

But,  at  the  same  time,  it  is  a  serious  matter  if  that  Constitution  should  be  found 
wanting  in  any  principle  or  any  matter  of  fact.  The  deficiency  will  in  due  time  work 
mischief.  Error  in  the  Constitution  will  work  as  powerfully  as  truth,  and  what  is  left 
out  of  it  may  one  day  be  formally  declared  un-American.  And  one  such  serious 
matter  there  is ;  one  unnecessary  and  most  unfortunate  omission.  God  and  Chris¬ 
tianity  are  not  once  alluded  to :  although  the  Constitution  is  itself  the  product  of  a 
Christian  civilization,  and  although  it  purports  to  represent  the  mind  of  a  Christian 
people,  who  in  all  their  State  Constitutions  had  made  explicit  reference  to  both 
God  and  religion.  Hence  it  is  that  all  the  laws  of  this  country  in  favor  of  a  Christian 
morality  are  enacted  and  enforced  outside  of  the  Constitution.  They  rest  only  upon 
the  basis  of  what  is  called  Common  Law.  We  have,  strictly,  no  oath,  no  law  against 
blasphemy,  Sabbath  breaking  or  polygamy  that  has  any  better  foundation.  And,  as 
matters  seem  to  be  going,  it  will  soon  be  discovered  and  decreed  that  common  law  is 
only  another  name  for  custom,  which  has  no  binding  force.  And  then  where  are  we? 
In  atheism,  corruption  and  anarchy. 

The  National  Association  which  has  been  formed, 

RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED  AT  PHILADELPHIA. 

Resolved,  1st.  That  this  Convention  of  those  who  aim  to  secure  a  religious  amend¬ 
ment  to  our  National  Constitution  gratefully  acknowledge  the  good  providence  of  God 
in  the  evident  progress  of  this  cause  during  the  past  year. 

2d.  That,  with  the  conviction  that  under  God  all  that  is  wanting  for  its  ultimate  and 
early  triumph  is  the  publication  and  illustration  of  the  facts  and  the  principles  upon 
which  it  is  based,  we  pledge  ourselves  to  renewed  zeal  in  its  prosecution. 

3d.  That  this  Convention  renewedly  calls  the  attention  of  the  American  people  to 
the  fact  that  in  some  of  our  treaties  with  foreign  governments,  which  are  of  equal  au¬ 
thority  with  the  Constitution  itself,  we  are  declared  to  be  a  nation  in  no  sense  founded 
upon  Christianity,  and  not  (formally)  unlike  Mohammedans. 

4th.  That  this  Convention  reiterates  with  an  increased  and  solemn  appreciation  of 
their  importance  the  following  principles  of  moral  and  political  philosophy,  which,  iri 
substance,  have  been  set  forth  by  former  Conventions,  viz: 

That  civil  government  in  the  earth  stands  for  its  right  of  existence  upon  the  same 
basis  with  the  family,  both  being  the  appointments  of  the  God  of  nature  and*  morality, 


XIV 


THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 


and  that  nations,  like  families,  are  public  persons,  with  moral  character,  with  rights, 
duties,  and  responsibilities. 

That  the  continued  ignoring  of  God  and  religion  exposes  us  to  the  guilt  of  formal 
national  Atheism. 

That  the  nation  constituted  by  the  union  of  the  thirteen  British-American  Colonies 
was  a  Christian  nation*  as  is  shown  by  their  several  Colonial  histories  and  separate 
State  Constitutions,  and  therefore  it  was  and  is  no  more  than  simple  justice  to  the 
people  to  reflect  their  sentiments  in  the  National  Constitution. 

5th.  That,  in  view  ©f  the  controlling  power  of  the  Constitution,  in  shaping  State  as 
well  as  National  policy,  it  is  of  immediate  importance  to  public  morals  and  to  social 
order,  to  secure  “  such  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  will  remedy  this  great 
defect,  indicate  that  this  is  a  Christian  nation,  and  place  all  Christian  laws,  institu¬ 
tions,  and  usages  in  our  Government  on  an  undeniable  legal  basis  in  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  nation  especially  those  which  secure  a  proper  oath,  and  which  protect 
society  against  blasphemy,  Sabbath-breaking,  and  polygamy. 


CALL  FOR  THE  CINCINNATI  CONVENTION. 

Government  is  instituted  for  man  as  an  intellectual,  social,  and  moral  and  religious  be¬ 
ing.  It  corresponds  to  his  whole  nature.  It  is  intended  to  protect  and  advance  the  higher 
as  well  as  the  lower  interests  of  humanity.  It  acts  for  its  legitimate  purposes  when  it 
watches  over  domestic  life,  and  asserts  and  enforces  the  sanctity  of  the  marriage 
bond  ;  when  it  watches  over  intellect  and  education,  and  furnishes  means  for  develop¬ 
ing  all  the  faculties  of  the  mind ;  when  it  frowns  on  profaneness,  lewdness,  the  dese¬ 
cration  of  the  Sabbath,  and  other  crimes  which  injure  society  chiefly  by  weakening 
moral  and  religious  sentiment,  and  degrading  the  character  of  a  people. 

Acting  for  such  purposes,  government  should  be  established  on  moral  principles. 
Moral  principles  of  conduct  are  determined  by  moral  relations.  The  relations  of  a 
nation  to  God  and  His  moral  laws  are  clear  and  definite  : 

1.  A  nation  is  the  creature  of  God. 

2.  It  is  clothed  with  authority  derived  from  God. 

3.  It  owes  allegiance  to  Jesus  Christ,  the  appointed  Ruler  of  Nations. 

4.  It  is  subject  to  the  authority  of  the  Bible,  the  special  revelation  of  moral  law. 

In  constituting  and  administering  its  Government,  then,  a  nation  is  under  obliga¬ 
tions  to  acknowledge  God  as  the  author  of  its  existence  and  the  source  of  its  author¬ 
ity,  Jesus  Christ  as  its  ruler,  and  the  Bible  as  the  fountain  of  its  laws,  and  the 
supreme  rule  of  its  conduct. 

Up  to  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  the  National  Constitution,  acknowledgments  of 
this  kind  were  made  by  all  the  States.  They  are  yet  made  by  many  of  the  States. 
And  in  the  actual  administration  of  the  national  Government  the  principle  is  admit¬ 
ted.  But  the  fundamental  law  of  the  nation,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, 
on  which  our  Government  rests,  and  according  to  which  it  is  to  be  administered,  fails 
to  make,  fully  and  explicitly,  any  such  acknowledgment.  This  failure  has  fostered 
among  us  mischievous  ideas  like  the  following  :  The  nation,  as  such,  has  no  relations 
to  God  ;  its  authority  has  no  higher  source  than  the  will  of  the  people  ;  Government 
is  instituted  only  for  the  lower  wants  of  man  ;  the  State  goes  beyond  its  sphere 
when  it  educates  religiously,  or  legislates  against  profanity  or  Sabbath  desecration. 

The  National  Association  which  has  been  formed,  &c. 

RESOLUTIONS  ADOPTED  AT  CINCINNATI. 

Resolved,  That  the  State,  as  a  power  claiming  and  exercising  supreme  jurisdiction 
over  vast  numbers  of  human  beings,  as  the  sovereign  arbiter  of  life  and  death,  and  as 
an  educating  power,  has  necessarily  a  moral  character  and  accountability  of  its  own. 


ORIGIN  AND  PROGRESS  OF  THE  MOVEMENT. 


XV 


Resolved ,  That  it  is  the  right  and  duty  of  the  United  States,  as  a  nation  settled  by 
Christians,  a  nation  with  Christian  laws  and  usages,  and  with  Christianity  as  its 
greatest  social  force,  to  acknowledge  itself,  in  its  written  Constitution,  to  he  a  Chris¬ 
tian  nation. 

. Resolved ,  That  as  the  disregard  of  sound  theory  always  leads  to  mischievous 
practical  results,  so  in  this  case  the  failure  of  our  nation  to  acknowledge,  in  its 
organic  law,  its  relation  to  God  and  His  moral  laws,  as  a  Christian  nation,  has  fos¬ 
tered  the  theory  that  government  has  nothing  to  do  with  religion,  and  that  conse¬ 
quently  laws  in  favor  of  the  Sabbath,  Christian  marriage,  and  the  use  of  the  Bible  in 
the  schools,  are  unconstitutional. 

Resolved,  That  we  recognize  the  necessity  of  complete  harmony  between  our  written 
Constitution  and  the  actual  facts  of  the  National  life  ;  and  we  maintain  that  the  true 
way  to  effect  this  undoubted  harmony  is  not  to  expel  the  Bible  and  all  idea  of  God  and 
religion  from  our  schools,  abrogate  laws  enforcing  Christian  morality,  and  abolish  all 
devout  observances  in  connection  with  Government,  but  to  insert  an  explicit  acknowl¬ 
edgment  of  God  and  the  Bible  in  our  fundamental  law. 

Resolved,  That  the  proposed  religious  Amendment,  so  far  from  tending  to  a  union  of 
Church  and  State,  is  directly  opposed  to  such  union,  inasmuch  as  it  recognizes  the 
nation’s  relations  to  God,  and  insists  that  the  nation  should  acknowledge  these  relations 
for  itself,  and  not  through  the  medium  of  any  Church  establishment. 


The  most  imposing  and  influential  Convention  yet  held  was  that  of  which 
the  following  pages  give  the  proceedings.  In  the  number  of  delegates  in  at¬ 
tendance,  in  the  variety  and  effectiveness  of  the  addresses  wdiich  commended 
the  cause  to  enthusiastic  and  delighted  audiences,  and  in  the  generous  provi¬ 
sion  made  for  the  prosecution  of  the  work  on  an  enlarged  scale  during  the 
coming  year,  this  Convention  far  surpassed  all  that  have  preceded  it. 

Wednesday,  the  26th  ult.,  the  day  fixed  for  the  assembling  of  the  Conven¬ 
tion,  was  a  day  of  spring-like  mildness  and  beauty,  a  circumstance  which 
contributed  to  swell  the  audiences  irt  the  first  two  sessions  of  the  Convention. 
But  the  increasing  interest  of  its  proceedings,  and  the  earnestness  of  its  mem¬ 
bers  and  friends,  were  manifest  in  the  fact  that,  notwithstanding  an  incessant 
snow-storm  on  the  second  day,  which  lasted  far  into  the  night,  the  attendance 
continued  undiminished  until  the  end.  The  assembly,  at  each  of  the  evening 
sessions,  numbered  fully  1,500  persons,  and  these,  with  scarcely  an  exception, 
remained  till  a  late  hour  with  evident  interest  and  delight. 

According  to  the  report  of  the  Committee  on  Enrollment,  found  on  page  49, 
four  hundred  and  seventy  members  took  seats  in  the  Convention,  and  three 
hundred  and  sixty-three  of  these  bore  certificates  of  their  appointment  as  dele¬ 
gates  from  public  meetings,  auxiliary  societies,  churches  and  other  bodies.  The 
students  of  Harvard  Law  School,  for  example,  had  held  a  meeting  and 
appointed  three  of  their  number  as  delegates  to  New  York.  Thus  the  Con¬ 
vention,  large  as  it  was,  represented  an  immensely  larger  constituency  devoted 
to  the  cause.  Nineteen  States  and  one  territory  were  thus  represented. 

A  delightful  feature  of  this,  as  of  all  previous  conventions,  was  the  harmony 
with  which  the  representatives  of  the.  various  denominations  of  Christians 
were  able  to  deliberate  and  act  together  in  the  interests  of  their  common 
Christianity  and  of  the  civil  institutions  whicji  rest  on  it.  Not  a  trace  of  de¬ 
nominational  self-assertion,  or  of  sectarian  jealousy,  was  visible  through  the 


\ 


Xvi  THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT  OF  THE  CONSTITUTION. 

whole  course  of  the  proceedings.  In  fact,  sectarian  diversities  sunk  out  of 
sight  in  the  unity  of  feeling  and  purpose  which  pervaded  the  assembly,  and 
the  question,  “  Of  what  church  is  he  ?  ”  was  seldom  asked.  To  every  one  who 
deplores  the  divisions  of  the  Church,  our  work  has  great  moral  value,  as  it 
makes  visible  the  underlying  unity  and  essential  agreement  of  all  Christian 
sects,  and  brings  them  together  in  a  holy  fellowship  which  greatly  promotes 
mutual  acquaintance  and  esteem. 


A  similar  sketch  of  the  origin  and  progess  of  this  mo’vement,  of  which  this 
is  in  part  a  condensation,  was  prefixed  to  the  proceedings  of  the  last  National 
Convention.  The  reader  is  referred  to  this  for  additional  information. 


( 


V  R  O  C  E  E  D  I  N  G  S 


OF  THE 


NEW  YORK, 

FEBRUARY  26  AND  2  7,  1873. 


This  Convention  of  the  friends  of  the  movement  to  secure  the 
Religious  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  met 
in  the  Large  Hall  of  the  Cooper  Institute,  on  Wednesday,  February 
26,  at  two  o’clock,  P.  M.  The  call,  in  response  to  which  the  Con¬ 
vention  assembled,  was  as  follows : 

CALL  FOR  A  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  Question  of  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  of  Sabbath  Laws,  and 
many  similar  questions,  are  now  demanding  attention  and  decisive  settlement. 
Shall  the  Nation  preserve  the  Christian  features  of  its  life  ?  This  is  rapidly 
becoming  the  issue  of  our  day. 

Many  thoughtful  citizens  view  with  deep  concern  the  assaults  now  being 
made  on  everything  of  a  Christian  character  in  our  civil  institutions.  Not 
only  time-serving  politicians  and  irreligious  men,  but  eminent  officers  of  gov¬ 
ernment,  and  leaders  among  Christians,  accepting  the  false  theory  that  govern¬ 
ment  has  nothing  to  do  with  religion,  cooperate  in  these  assaults. 

An  appeal  against  the  Bible  in  the  Common  Schools  now  lies  before  the  Su¬ 
preme  Court  of  Ohio.  It  will  come  up  for  adjudication,  in  its  regular  order, 
sometime  this  winter,  when  a  determined  effort  will  be  made  to  overturn  the 
present  noble  school  system  of  that  State. 

The  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction  of  the  State  of  New  York  has  re¬ 
cently  decided  that  the  Bible,  though  assigned  an  honorable  place  in  the  State 
system  of  education  when  first  established,  and  actually  used  for  sixty  years, 
can  n*o  longer  be  legally*  read  during  regular  hours  in  any  school  of  the  State. 
Armed  wfith  authoritative  decisions  like  this,  the  enemies  of  the  Bible  certainly 
will  succeed  unless  the  friends  of  our  Common  Schools  awake  to  the  dangers 
that  threaten  them,  and  take  prompt  and  adequate  action. 


2 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


In  order  successfully  to  repel  their  assaults,  the  assailants  must  he  met  at 
their  own  point  of  attack.  They  assail  the  Bible  in  the  Schools,  Sabbath 
Laws,  Laws  against  Polygamy,  and  every  similar  element  of  our  Christian 
civilization,  on  the  ground  of  their  inconsistency  with  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  which  acknowledges  neither  God  nor  the  Bible,  and  with  which 
everything  in  the  actual  administration  of  the  Government  should  harmonize. 

What  shall  be  done  ?  This  is  the  momentous  question  now  forcing  itself 
upon  the  American  people.  It  will  not  down.  It  must  soon  be  answered  in  one 
of  two  ways.  Which  shall  it  be  ?  Shall  we  obliterate  every  Christian  feature 
from  existing  institutions  ?  Or,  shall  we  make  the  Constitution  explicitly 
Christian  ?  Shall  we  thrust  out  the  Bible  from  our  schools  to  make  them  con¬ 
form  to  the  Constitution  ?  Patriotism  and  true  Statesmanship  answer,  No  ! 
But  let  the  acknowledgment  of  God  and  the  Bible  be  inserted  in  the  Consti¬ 
tution  to  make  it  conform  to  the  Common  Schools. 

The  National  Association  has  been  formed  for  tli£  purpose  of  securing  such 
an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  will  suitably  acknowledge  Almighty  God 
as  the  author  of  the  nation’s  existence  and  the  ultimate  source  of  its  authority, 
Jesus  Christ  as  its  Ruler,  and  the  Bible  as  the  fountain  of  its  laws,  and  thus 
indicate  that  this  is  a  Christian  nation,  and  place  all  Christian  laws,  institu¬ 
tions,  and  usages  in  our  government  on  an  undeniable  legal  basis  in  the  fun¬ 
damental  law  of  the  land.  This  Association  invites  all  citizens,  who  favor  such 
an  amendment,  without  distinction  of  party  or  creed,  to  meet  in  the  HALL 
OF  THE  COOPER  UNION,  New  York  City,  on  Wednesday,  February  26, 
1873,  at  2  o’clock,  P.  M. 

All  such  citizens,  to  whose  notice  this  call  may  be  brought,  are  requested  to 
hold  meetings,  and  appoint  Delegates  to  the  Convention. 

WILLIAM  STRONG,  U.  S.  Supreme  Court, 

President  of  the  National  Association. 

Vice-Presidents  : 

His  Excellency,  James  M.  Harvey,  Governor  of  Kansas. 

His  Excellency,  Seth  Padelford,  Governor  of  Rhode  Island. 

The  Hon.  J.  W.  McClurg,  Ex- Governor  of  Missouri. 

The  Hon.  W.  H.  Cumback,  Lieutenant-Governor  of  Indiana. 

The  Hon.  Wm.  Murray,  Supreme  Court  of  New  York. 

The  Hon.  M.  B.  Hagans,  Superior  Court  of  Cincinnati. 

The  Hon.  Felix  R.  Brunot,  Chairman  of  the  Board  of  Indian  Commissioners, 
Pittsburg ,  Pa. 

John  Alexander,  Esq.,  Philadelphia ,  Pa. 

Charles  G.  Nazro,  Esq. ,  Boston ,  Mass. 

The  Hon.  Thomas  W.  Bicknell,  Commissioner  Public  Schools ,  Rhode  Island. 
James  W.  Taylor,  Esq .,  Newburg,  New  York. 

Prof .  Tayler  Lewis,  LL.D.,  Union  College ,  New  York. 

Edward  S.  Tobey,  Esq. ,  Boston. 

Russell  Sturgis,  Jr.,  Esq. ,  ifosfoTi. 

The  Right  Rev.  G.  T.  Bedell,  D.D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  P.  E.  Church , 
Diocese  OJvto* 

The  Right  Rev.  G.  D.  Cummins,  D.D.,  Assistant  Bishop  of  the  P.  E.  Church , 
Diocese  of  Kentucky. 

The  Rev.  C.  S.  Finney,  D.D.,  formerly  President  of  Oberlin  College,  Oberlin,  0. 
The  Rev.  F.  Merrick,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  Ohio  University, -Dela¬ 
ware,  0. 

The  Rev.  Joseph  Cummings,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  Preset  of  the  Wesleyan  University, 
Middletown,  Conn. 

The  Rev.  A.  D.  Mayo,  D.D.,  Cincinnati. 


.  CALL  FOR  THE  CONVENTION. 


3 


The  Rev.  T.  A.  Morris,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church ,  Springfield ,  Ohio. 
The  Rev.  J.  H.  McIlvaine,  D.D.,  Newark ,  N.  J. 

Prof.  O.  N.  Stoddard,  LL.D.,  Wooster  University ,  0. 

The  Rev.  M.  Simpson,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  M.  E.  Church. 

The  Rev.  J.  Blanchard,  D.D. ,  President  of  Wheaton  College ,  111. 

John  S.  Hart,  LL.D.,  Princeton  College,  N.  J. 

The  Right  Rev.  John  B.  Kerfoot,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  P.  E.  Church ,  Diocese 
of  Pittsburg. 

The  Right  Rev.  F.  D.  Huntingdon,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  P.  E.  Church ,  Diocese 
of  Central  New  York.  * 

The  Rev.  T.  L.  Cuyl^R,  D.D.,  Brooklyn. 

The  Rev.  Levi  Scott,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  Delaware. 

Prof.  Julius  H.  Seelye,  D.D.,  Amherst  College,  Mass. 

The  Right  Rev.  Charles  P.  McIlvaine,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.,  Bishop  of  the 
P.  E.  Church,  Diocese  of  Ohio. 

The  Rev.  A.  A.  Miner,  D.D.,  President  of  Tuft's  College ,  Mass. 

The  Rev.  Jonathan  Edwards,  D.D.,  Peoria,  III. 

General  Secretary: 

The  Rev.  D.  McAllister,  410  West  Forty-third  street,  New  York. 
Corresponding  Secretary  : 

The  Rev.  T.  P.  Stevenson,  38  North  Sixteenth  street ,  Philadelphia. 

Recording  Secretary  : 

The  Rev.  W.  W.  Barr,  Philadelphia. 

Treasurer  : 

Samuel  Agnew,  Esq.,  1126  Arch  street,  Philadelphia. 

THE  FOLLOWING  GENTLEMEN  CONCUR  IN  THE  FOREGOING  CALL : 

The  Hon.  Lorenzo  Sawyer,  U.  S.  Circuit  Court,  San  Francisco ,  Cal. 

The  Hon.  G.  W.  Brooks,  U.  S.  District  Court,  North  Carolina. 

The  Hon.  Julius  Rockwell,  Superior  Court  of  Massachusetts. 

The  Hon.  Ellis  A.  Apgar,  State  Sup't  of  Public  Instruction,  N.  J. 

The  Hon.  Daniel  S.  Briggs,  State  Sup't  of  Public  Instruction,  Michigan. 

The  Hon.  Alonzo  Abernethy,  State  Sup't  of  Public  Instruction,  Iowa. 

The  Hon.  A.  N.  Fisher,  State  Superintendent  of  Public  Instruction ,  Nevada. 
The  Hon.  Josiaii  H.  Drummond,  LL.D.,  Portland,  Maine. 

The  Rev.  Charles  Hodge,  D.D.,  Princeton  Theological  Seminary,  N.  J. 

The  Right  Rev.  W.  M.  Green,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  P.  E.  Church,  Diocese  of 
Mississippi. 

The  Rev.  John  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  Episcopal  Theological  School,  Cambridge,  Mass. 
The  Rev.  II.  Dyer,  D.D.,  Corresp.  Sec.  of  Evang.  Knowl.  Society,  New  York. 
Vice-Chancellor  J.  Gorgas,  University  of  the  South,  Tenn. 

The  Rev.  Edmund  S.  Janes,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  New  York. 

The  Rev.  Henry  J.  Fox,  D.D.,  Charleston,  S.  C. 

The  Rev.  Thomas  De  Witt,  D.D.,  Collegiate  Reformed  Church,  New  York. 
Pres’t  James  W.  Strong,  D.D.,  Carleton  College,  Minn. 

Pres’t  Thomas  Holmes,  D.D.,  Union  Uiristian  College ,  Ind. 

Pres’t  Geo.  Loomis,  D.D.,  Alleghany  College ,  Pa. 

Pres’t  W.  F.  King,  D.D.,  Cornell  College,  Iowa. 

The  Rev.  William  M.  Paxton,  D.D.,  First  Presbyterian  Church,  New  York. 
The  Rev.  William  R.  Nicholson,  D.D.,  Trinity  Church,  Newark,  N  J. 

The  Rev.  E.  R.  Craven,  D.D.,  Newark,  N  J. 

Pres’t  William  Carey  Crane,  D.D.,  Baylor  University,  Texas. 

Pres’t  Reuben  Andrus,  D.D.,  Indiana  Ashbury  University. 

Pres’t  John  Wheeler,  D.D.,  Iowa  Wesleyan  University. 

Prof.  J.  R.  W.  Sloane,  D.D.,  Reformed  Presb.  Theo.  Seminary,  Alleghany,  Pa. 


4 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL*  CONVENTION. 


The  Rev.  J.  Pickett,  D.D.,  Holly  Springs,  Miss. 

H.  M.  Anderson,  Esq. ,  Treasurer  of  the  University  of  the  South ,  Tenn. 

Prof.  Lyman  H.  Atwater,  D.D.,  Editor  of  the  Presbyterian  Quarterly , 
Princeton ,  N.  J. 

The  Rev.  William  Nast,  D.D.,  Editor  of  German  Publications  of  M.  E.  Church , 
Cincinnati ,  0. 

Prof.  R.  Bethell  Claxton,  D.D.,  P.  E.  Divinity  School ,  Philadelphia. 

Pres’t  Geo.  B.  Jocelyn,  D.D.,  Albion  College ,  Mich. 

P^of.  J.  Fullonton,  D.D.,  Bates  College ,  Maine. 

The  Rev.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  D'.D.,  St.  George's  Church ,  Neio  York. 

The  Hon.  J.  W.  Curry,  Member  of  Pennsylvania  Constitutional  Convention. 

The  Hon.  John  Collins,  Member  of  Penn.  Consti.  Con. 

Prof.  H.  L.  Smith,  LL.D.,  Hobart  College ,  M  Y. 

Prof.  Tiios.  Sproull,  D .  D . , . Reform ed  Presb .  Theo.  Seminary ,  Alleghany ,  Pa. 
Pres’t  J.  N.  Rend  all,  D.D.,  Lincoln  University ,  Pa. 

Prof.  S.  T.  Woodhull,  Lincoln  University ,  Pa. 

Prof.  E.  R.  Bower,  Lincoln  University ,  Pa. 

Prof.  T.  W.  Cattell,  Lincoln  University ,  Pa. 

Prof.  J.  B.  Rend  all,  Lincoln  University ,  Pa. 

Prof.  J.  R.  Jacques,  Illinois  Wesleyan  University. 

Pres’t  David  Paul,  D.D.,  Muskingum  College ,  0. 

The  Hon.  T.  H.  Baird  Patterson,  Member  of  Pennsylvania  Constitutional 
Convention. 

And  Numerous  Others. 


The  Hon.  Wm.  Strong,  of  Washington,  President  of  the  National 
Association,  being  absent,  Jno.  Alexander,  Esq.,  of  Philadelphia, 
one  of  the  Vice-Presidents  of  the  National  Association,  called  thq 
Convention  to  order,  and  spoke  as  follows : 

We  are  called  together  at  a  time  of  no  ordinary  significance.  The  com¬ 
manding  influence  of  our  American  republicanism  is  causing  republics  to  be 
born  in  a  day ;  and  if  constant  vigilance  be  necessary  to  preserve  liberty,  our 
present  national  necessity  is  that  Christian  statesmanship  which  we  have 
assembled  together  to  promote.  It  is,  therefore,  no  transient,  sectional,  or 
party  interest  that  has  called  us  to  the  metropolis  of  American  influence  at 
this  time.  This  National  Association  desires  to  preserve  and  perpetuate  for 
ourselves,  our  children,  and  for  the  example  of  all  the  world,  the  glorious  in¬ 
heritance' which  we  have  received  from  our  Christian  patriotic  ancestors.  We 
know  from  other  history  of  the  past,  as  well  as  from  Holy  Writ,  that  the 
nation  that  will  not  serve  Him  shall  perish. 

The  Pev.  A.  M.  Milligan,  D.D.,  of  Pittsburg,  was  called  upon  by 
the  Chairman  to  lead  the  Convention  in  prayer. 

A  Committee  on  Enrollment  was  then  appointed,  as  follows : 

Rev.  J.  R.  Thompson,  Chairman  ;  Rev.  E.  H.  Fanning,  Rev.  W.  H.  Knox, 
Rev.  S.  H.  Graham,  Rev.  D.  B.  Willson,  Messrs.  J.  B.  Caldwell,  A.  L. 
Kelley,  Lewis  Renfield,  Robert  Taylor,  D.  Chesnut,  and  JonN  Love. 

A  Committee  on  Permanent  Organization  was  also  appointed,  as 
follows : 

Rev.  J.  C.  K.  Milligan,  Chairman  ;  Rev.  George  Taylor,  Rev.  Alex. 
Calhoun,  and  J.  J.  Swanwick,  Esq. 


GENERAL  SECRETARY’S  ADDRESS. 


5 


Pending  the  report  of  these  Committees,  the  Rev.  D.  McAllister, 
General  Secretary  of  the  National  Association,  delivered  an  address, 
in  substance  as  follows : 

D.  MCALLISTER’S  ADDRESS. 

THE  RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT  MOVEMENT  JUST,  SEASONABLE,  AND  NECESSARY. 

It  is  fitting  that  something  should  be  said,  at  the  beginning  of  the  sessions 
of  this  Convention,  in  answer  to  the  question,  “  For  what  purpose  and  why 
has  this  National  Assembly  met?”  As  a  representative  of  the  movement,  I 
shall  endeavor  to  answer  this  inquiry,  and  show  that  we  have  met  to  further 
what  is  right  in  itself,  and  seasonable,  and  necessary. 

This  Convention  has  assembled  at  the  call  of  the  National  Association  to 
securp  the  Religious  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  ; 
and  the  object  of  the  Convention,  like  that  of  the  Association,  is  to  prepare 
the  way  for  ultimately  securing  such  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  will 
suitably  express  our  national  acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of  Almighty 
God,  of  Christ,  and  of  the  Bible.  No  one  is  committed  to  any  form  of  words. 
A  suitable  acknowledgment  of  the  nation’s  relation  to  the  Supreme  Ruler  of 
nations,  and  His  moral  laws,  is  asked  for,  while  it  is  left  with  the  appropriate 
authority,  either  Congress  or  a  Constitutional  Convention,  as  the  case  may  be, 
to  formulate  the  expression. 

The  movement  for  such  an  amendment  rests  upon  a  fact  and  a  principle  : 
on  the  fact  that  the  Government  of  the  United  States,  as  it  is  and  always  has 
been' administered,  stands  in  intimate  relations  with  Christianit}T ;  and  on  the 
'principle  that  the  relations  of  a  government  to  the  religion  of  the  people,  as  a 
unit,  should  be  acknowledged  in  the  fundamental  law.  The  fact  is  indispu¬ 
table.  The  principle  is  one  of  the  most  firmly  established  and  fundamental 
principles  of  constitutional  law.  Let  us  examine  each  of  these  points,  appeal¬ 
ing  to  the  records  of  history  and  the  highest  authorities  in  political  science 
and  jurisprudence. 

The  fact  that  our  Government  always  has  been  connected  with  Christianity, 
as  it  never  has  been  connected  with  any  other  religion,  is  so  patent  a  fact  of 
history  as  to  need  only  to  be  stated.  The  men  who  came  to  this  country  and 
originally  settled  it,  were,  for  the  most  part,  Christians.  They  acknowledged 
Almighty  God,  and  Christ,  and  the  Bible.  The  Christian  religion  was  the 
religion  by  whose  teachings  they  sought  to  regulate  all  their  affairs.  They 
were  of  different  nationalities  and  languages,  but  they  were  mainly  of  one 
religion — Christianity,  with  an  open  Bible.  There  were  Swedes  and  Finns  ; 
there  were  Dutch  and  French  settlers  ;  there  were  Scotch,  and  Irish,  and 
English  colonists.  But  they  were,  with  but  comparatively  few  exceptions, 
Christian  men,  with  their  different  translations  of  one  and  the  same  authorita¬ 
tive  Holy  Book. 

Now,  the  religion  of  a  people  must  lie  at  the  very  foundation  of  their 
nationality.  Max  Muller,  in  his  lectures  on  the  Philosophy  of  Religion,  look¬ 
ing  at  this  subject  simply  as  a  philosopher,  says  :  “  It  is  language  and  religion 

.that  make  a  people  ;  but  religion  is  even  a  more  powerful  agent  than  lan¬ 
guage.”  The  history  of  our  own  nation  may  be  cited  as  one  of  the  most  con¬ 
vincing  proofs  of  this  statement.  Schelling  and  Hegel,  expressing  the  con¬ 
viction  reached  through  the  philosophic  study  of  history,  declare  the  same 


6 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


truth.  Says  Hegel,  in  his  Philosophy  of  History  “  Their  idea  of  God  con¬ 
stitutes  the  general  foundation  of  a  people.  Whatever  is  the  form  of  a 
religion,  the  same  is  the  form  of  a  State  and  its  Constitution.  It  springs  from 
religion.” 

Had  Mohammedans  settled  this  country,  they  would  have  incorporated 
Mohammedanism  into  its  civil  and  political  institutions.  Had  Pagans  come 
here  at  first,  and  continued  in  the  ascendancy,  the  political  body  formed 
and  developed  would  have  taken  on  distinctively  Pagan  features.  The  xeligion 
of  a  people  will  pervade  all  their  relations  and  associations.  It  is  the  most 
potent  of  all  social  forces.  It  will  inevitably  control  the  molding  of  the 
national  life.  All  other  influences  must  at  last  succumb  to  it,  or  it  must  cease 
to  be  the  religion  of  the  people.  , 

The  Christians  who  peopled  this  land  simply  did  what  the  settlers  of  any 
country  always  have  done  and  will  do.  They  built  up  institutions  which  were 
clearly  and  unmistakably  marked  with  the  characteristics  of  their  religion. 
As  Daniel  Webster  well  said:  “  Our  ancestors  founded  their  government  on 
morality  and  religious  sentiment.  They  were  brought  hither  by  theii  high 
veneration  for  the  Christian  religion.  They  journeyed  by  its  light  and  labored 
in  its  hope.  They  sought  to  incorporate  it  with  the  elements  of  their  society, 
and  to  diffuse  its  influences  through  all  their  institutions,  civil,  political,  social, 
and  educational.”  They  formed  themselves  as  Christians  into  civil  and  politi¬ 
cal  organizations.  At  first  in  the  colonies,  and  then  in  the  States,  the  Christian 
religion  was  acknowledged  in  the  whole  structure  of  government.  In  his  com¬ 
mentaries  on  the  Constitution,  Justice  Story  remarks:  “Every  American 
colony,  from  its  foundation  down  to  the  revolution,  with  the  exception  of 
Rhode  Island,  if,  indeed,  that  State  be  an  exception,  did  openly,  by  the  whole 
course  of  its  institutions,  support  and  sustain,  in  some  form,  the  Christian 
religion.”  After  the  revolution  the  intimate  relation  of  the  Government  with 
Christianity  still  continued.  Our  forefathers,  who  called  on  God  during  their 
struggle,  acknowledged  Him  in  their  legislative  assemblies,  in  their  schools 
where  His  word  was  read,  and  in  the  courts  of  justice  where  an  oath  was  pre¬ 
scribed  to  be  taken  in  His  name.  They  appointed  public  days  of  fasting  and 
thanksgiving,  and  placed  upon  their  statute-books  laws  guarding  the  sacredness 
of  the  Lord’s  day.  Again  and  again  they  declared  that  Christianity  was  part 
of  the  common  law  of  the  land. 

This  connection  between  Christianity  and  the  administration  of  our  Govern¬ 
ment  still  exists.  Christian  ministers  are  employed  by  Government  as  chaplains 
in  public  institutions.  They  go  forth  at  Government’s  expense  with  our  army 
and  our  navy  in  time  of  war,  and  still  teach  the  truths  of  Christianity  to  soldiers 
and  sailors  in  time  of  peace.  Prayers  are  offered  in  our  State  legislatures  and  in 
the  halls  of  Congress.  The  Bible  is  in  our  schools  and  the  oath  in  our  courts 
of  justice.  Laws  against  profanity  and  Sabbath  desecration,  though  too  often 
inoperative,  are  still  upon  our  statute-books.  The  appointment  of  days  for 
public  thanksgiving,  since  Lincoln’s  time,  has  become  the  regular  annual  prac¬ 
tice  of  the  President  as  well  as  of  State  Governors. 

Here,  then,  is  the  fact.  The  Government  of  the  United  States,  as  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  a  Christian  people — a  people  among  whom  the  Christian  religion 
is  altogether  in  the  ascendancy — is  to-day  administered,  as  it  always  has  been, 
in  intimate  connection  with  Christianity. 

And  now  we  come  to  the  principle  that  tfce  connection  which  actually  exists 


7 


GENERAL  SECRETARY’S  ADDRESS. 

between  the  government  and  the  religion  of  the  people  should  find  acknowl¬ 
edgment  in  the  fundamental  law. 

The  highest  authorities  in  Constitutional  Jurisprudence  are  at  pains  to  point 
out  the  distinction  between  the  written  Constitution  of  a  nation,  and  that 
providential  or  historical  Constitution  which  exists  before  the  written  instru¬ 
ment.  Not  only  such  authorities  as  De  Maistre,  Rotlie,  and  Stahl,  but  the  best 
writers  among  ourselves,  such  as  Brownson,  Hurd,  Jameson,  and  Mulford,  make 
this  important  distinction  in  a  very  clear  and  emphatic  manner.  Says  the  last 
named  author,  in  his  invaluable  work  entitled  “The  Nation:”  “The  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  political  people  has  a  two-fold  character:  there  is  a  real  and  a 
formal  Constitution.  The  one  is  the  development  of  the  nation  in  history — 
the  historical  Constitution;  the  other  is  the  formula  which  the  nation  pre¬ 
scribes  for  its  order — the  enacted  Constitution.” 

Now,  a  written  Constitution  is  not  a  necessity  of  government.  Up  to  the 
year  1818,  the  State  of  Connecticut  had  no  written  Constitution ;  nor  was  one 
framed  for  Rhode  Island  until  the  year  1842.  If  the  United  States  Govern¬ 
ment  had  no  written  Constitution,  the  question  as  to  the  constitutionality  of 
any  official  action  would  be  tested  by  an  appeal  to  the  customs,  compacts, 
decisions  of  courts,  and  ordinary  statutes  of  the  country.  But  as  we  have  a 
written  instrument,  the  appeal  is  made  to  it.  And  just  so  far  as  the  written 
instrument  serves  its  purpose  as  a  Constitution  of  government,  it  will  be  a 
transcript  of  the  unwritten  historical  Constitution  of  the  nation.  It  is  a  dress 
made  for  the  nation,  and  it  should  be  made  to  fit.  The  social  forces  actually 
operating  in  a  nation  give  it  a  certain  character.  They  mold  its  institutions, 
determine  its  common  law,  and  evolve  the  actual  and  distinctive  features  of 
the  nation’s  life.  It  is  the  office  of  a  written  Constitution  to  translate  these 
facts  of  the  unwritten  Constitution  into  legal  language,  and  authenticate  them. 
So  saj^s  Judge  Jameson.  Mr.  Mulford  expresses  the  same  thought  thus: 
“  The  formal  Constitution  must  correspond  to  the  real.  It  is  the  order  in 
which  the  people  are  to  act,  and  the  people  must  find,  therefore,  in  the  written 
or  formal  Constitution,  the  expression  of  its  spirit,  and  its  purpose  must  not 
be  fettered  nor  perverted  by  it,  but  it  must  be  able  to  act  in  and  through  it 
with  entire  freedom,  in  the  furtherance  of  its  aim.  There  must  be  reflected 
in  it  its  own  spirit,  and  in  so  far  as  it  fails  of  this,  it  has  elements  of  weakness 
or  of  peril.” 

Here,  again,  are  the  most  important  principles  of  political  philosophy, 
thought  out  by  able  men  without  regard  to  any  movement.  Let  the  candid 
student  of  constitutional  law  apply  them.  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  the  Christian 
religion  is  the  most  potent  social  force  that  ever  operated  among  us  as  a 
people?  Has  it  not  evolved  facts  of  a  distinctively  Christian  character  in  the 
nation’s  life  ?  Is  there  not,  as  there  always  has  been,  a  vital  connection  be- 
tweeen  our  Government,  in  its  administration,  and  Christianity?  Do  not  the 
very  demands  of  our  opponents  prove  this  ?  Is  not,  in  other  words,  the  real, 
vital,  historical  Constitution  of  our  nation,  Christian  ?  And,  according  to  the 
principle  brought  to  view,  should  not  the  formal,  written  Constitution  con¬ 
form  to  the  unwritten  one,  and  be  explicitly  Christian  also  ?  If  Christianity 
be  the  most  powerful  social  force  in  operation  in  this  nation,  and  if  it  have 
evolved,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  most  important  national  features  and  institutions 
of  a  Christian  character,  as  is  admitted  on  all  hands;  and  if  it  be  the  office  of  a 
written  Constitution  to  translate  these  facts  into  legal  language,  and  incorpo- 


'8  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

rate  tlieir  authentication  into  itself — if  it  be  a  principle  of  constitutional  law 
that  the  formal  Constitution  should  correspond  to  the  real  Constitution,  as  the 
highest  authorities  agree  in  maintaining,  then  it  seems  utterly  impossible  to 
escape  the  conclusion  that  the  relation  which  actually  exists  between  our  Gov¬ 
ernment  and  Christianity  should  have  expression  in  the  written  Constitution  of 
the  nation. 

Such  expression,  however,  is  not  found  in  our  fundamental  law.  I  do  not 
wait  here  to  show  how  that  omission  occurred.  It  is  sufficient  for  us  just 
now  to  have  in  mind  the  admitted  fact  that  the  national  Constitution  is  silent 
as  to  religion,  while  the  nation  itself,  as  it  moves  on  in  the  administration  of 
its  affairs,  is  not  silent,  Christianity  has  evolved  and  maintained  the  fact,  in 
the  unwritten  Constitution  of  the  nation,  of  prayer  in  the  name  of  Christ  in 
the  nation’s  halls ;  but  the  written  Constitution  has  no  clause  to  correspond  to 
this  fact.  Christianity  has  placed  the  Bible,  as  a  fact,  in  the  nation’s  courts 
of  justice,  and  in  the  common  schools;  but  the  written  Constitution  does  not 
authenticate  this  essential  fact  of  our  national  life.  Thus,  to  adapt  to  this 
point  the  language  already  quoted— language  all  the  more  forcible  because  the 
writer  had  only  general  principles  in  view,  “  The  written  or  formal  Constitu¬ 
tion  fails  to  reflect  the  nation’s  spirit  in  not  being  conformed  to  the  real  or  un¬ 
written  Christian  Constitution  of  the  nation,  and  for  this  reason  it  has  in  itself 
elements  of  weakness  and  of  peril.” 

Hundreds  of  intelligent  men,  when  their  attention  has  been  called  to  this 
omission,  while  they  deeply  regret  it,  have  deprecated  any  attempt  to  remedy 
the  defect.  They  would  rejoice,  they  say,  had  the  acknowledgments  we 
seek  been  made  in  the  Constitution  when  first  framed,  but  at  this  late  day 
the  attempt  to  secure  them  is  open  to  the  gravest  objections.  How  forcibly 
does  this  remind  us  of  the  objection  to  Franklin’s  motion  for  prayers  in  the 
Convention  that  framed  the  Constitution.  For  nearly  five  weeks  there  seems 
to  have  been  no  thought  of  looking  to  God  for  direction  in  the  Convention. 
Franklin  moved  that  henceforth  prayers  be  offered  every  morning.  Mr.  Sher¬ 
man  seconded  the  motion.  But  Mr.  Hamilton  and  several  others  expressed 
their  apprehensions  that,  however  proper  such  a  resolution  might  have  been 
at  the  beginning  of  the  Convention,  it  might  at  that  late  day  bring  on  it  sointf 
disagreeable  animadversions.  Franklin  and  Sherman  well  replied  that  the  past 
omission  of  duty  could  not  justify  a  further  omission.  Had  the  Convention 
not  been  guilty  of  a  continued  omission  of  an  acknowledged  duty,  but  looked 
to  the  Father  of  lights  for  guidance,  we  might  have  been  spared  the  disasters 
of  recent  years,  and  the  rising  perils  of  to-day. 

A  continued  omission  on  our  part,  to  do  what  it  is  admitted  ought  to  have 
been  done  at  first,  can  be  attended  only  with  evil.  Once  more  I  appeal  to  the 
authority  of  Judge  Jameson.  Like  the  other  writers  to  whom  I  have  referred, 
he  insists  upon  having  the  written  Constitution  conform  to  the  unwritten  Con¬ 
stitution  of  the  nation.  In  any  case  in  which  there  is  a  want  of  conformity 
between  the  formal  or  written  and  the  real  or  unwritten  Constitution,  he  states 
clearly  and  pointedly  what  should  be  done.  And  let  his  words  be  marked. 
They  are  the  words  of  a  sound  lawyer.  They  are  words  of  present  warning. 
«  Not  only  may  the  people,  but,  if  they  would  insure  peace  with  progress,  they 
must  by  amendments  cause  the  former  to  conform  substantially  with  the 
latter.” 

Because  of  the  failure  to  conform  our  written  Constitution  to  the  facts  of  the 


9 


GENERAL  SECRETARY’S  ADDRESS. 

relation  of  our  Government  to  Christianity,  obstacles  have  been  thrown  in  the 
way  of  the  progress  of  the  nation  as  a  Christian  nation.  When  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  was  adopted  no  one  dreamed  of  denying  that  relation.  But  the  omission 
of  its  acknowledgment  in  the  formal  Constitution  soon  led  to  its  denial.  Nine 
years  after  the  written  Constitution  was  framed,  a  treaty  was  ratified  with 
Tripoli  in  which  it  is  expressly  stated  that  “the  Government  of  the  United 
States  is  not  in  any  sense  founded  on  the  Christian  religion.”  Justice  Story 
tells  us  in  his  “  Commentaries  on  the  Constitution,”  that  at  the  time  of  its 
adoption  “  an  attempt  to  level  all  religions,  and  make  it  a  matter  of  State 
policy  to  hold  all  in  utter  indifference,  would  have  created  universal  disappro¬ 
bation,  if  not  universal  indignation.  ”  And  yet  the  very  policy  of  the  written 
Constitution  is  at  the  present  time  almost  universally  declared  to  be  to  put  all 
religions  6n  a  level,  and  hold  all  in  indifference.  This  is  the  legitimate  power 
of  silence — the  potent  influence  of  omission,  of  non-conformity  to  the  real 
Constitution  of  the  nation,  in  our  fundamental  law. 

The  same  disastrous  influence  of  this  omission  is  seen  in  many  practical 
questions  of  our  day.  Chancellor  Kent  and  other  eminent  jurists  decided  long 
ago  that  Christianity  is  part  of  the  common  law  of  the  land.  This  decision  is 
now  repeatedly,  and  in  high  quarters,  reversed.  The  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio 
and  the  Superior  Court  of  New  York  City  have  laid  down  the  counter-position 
that  Christianity  is  not  a  part  of  our  common  law.  Comstock,  in  his  popular 
edition  of  “  Kent’s  Commentaries,”  declares  that,  according  to  the  best  con¬ 
sidered  authorities,  Christianity  is  not  a  part  of  the  common  law  of  the  land. 
This  decision  is  maintained  all  over  the  country  by  an  increasing  number  of 
citizens,  on  the  ground  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  acknowledges 
Christianity  no  more  than  any  other  religion. 

And  now  come  forward  the  so-called  “  Liberals  ”  with  their  demands  for  the 
discontinuance  of  chaplains,  and  of  the  oath,  and  of  the  Bible  in  the  public 
schools,  and  for  the  abrogation  of  Sabbath  laws,  and  all  laws  enforcing 
Christian  morality,  on  the  ground  that  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
contains  no  acknowledgment  of  Christianity,  and  places  all  religions  and  no 
religion,  irreligion,  infidelity  and  atheism  included,  on  a  perfect  equality. 
Their  complaint  is  that  in  the  actual  administration  of  our  Government  all 
religions  are  not  put  upon  a  level,  and  their  demand  is  now  reiterated — and 
they  are  organizing  to  carry  it  into  effect — that  our  whole  political  system  shall 
be  administered  on  a  purely  secular  basis,  in  accordance  with  a  written  Con¬ 
stitution  which,  they  boast,  is  untainted  with  any  acknowledgment  of  Chris¬ 
tianity. 

It  is  useless  to  insist  that  they  misinterpret  the  written  fundamental  law. 
However  well  an  implied  or  obscurely-expressed  acknowledgment  of  the  Gov¬ 
ernment’s  relation  to  Christianity  might  have  answered  heretofore,  the  day  for 
every  thing  of  this  vague  and  uncertain  kind  has  gone  by.  The  nation  must 
now  declare  itself.  For,  if  it  remain  silent  now,  its  written  law  will  be  made 
the  potent  weapon  for  enforcing  the  demands  against  our  Christian  civil  insti¬ 
tutions. 

Nor  are  these  opponents  of  the  Christian  institutions  of  the  State  asserting 
their  demands  in  vain.  Already  the  Bible  is  excluded  from  many  of  our  public 
schools.  Even  prominent  City  and  State  Superintendents  of-  Education  have 
decided  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  cannot  be  legally  read  during  regular  hours 
in  our  schools.  Our  Sabbath  laws  are  becoming  a  dead  letter.  The  theory 


10 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


that  government  has  nothing  to  do  with  religion,  the  theory  which  is  on  every 
hand  declared  to  he  the  theory  of  our  national  Constitution,  is  binding  us  hand 
and  foot.  The  enemies  of  our  Christian  institutions  set  up  the  written  Con¬ 
stitution  before  us  as  an  insuperable  barrier  to  our  progress  in  Christian  civili¬ 
zation.  They  defy  our  Christian  laws  of  marriage  and  divorce,  and  betake 
themselves  for  refuge  to  the  Constitution.  They  violate  the  civil  safeguards 
of  the  Sabbath,  and  shield  themselves  beneath  the  Constitution.  Elated  with 
success,  and  gathering  strength  and  boldness  in  their  struggles,  they  brandish 
the  written  Constitution,  and  now  more  defiantly  than  ever  before,  assault 
the  nation  in  the  very  citadel  of  its  strength— the  use  of  the  Bible  in  its 
common  schools.  In  a  word,  the  written  Constitution  is  to-day  the  spear  and 
shield,  the  potent  weapon  both  of  offense  and  defense,  of  the  foes  of  the 
Christian  institutions  of  the  nation. 

But  there  is  a  limit  to  these  agressions  upon  what  is  dearest  and  best  among 
the  institutions  we  have  inherited.  The  spirit  ot  the  Christian  fathers  of  the 
Kepublic  still  lives.  These  last  sweeping  demands  of  the  enemy  are  rousing 
it  from  its  slumber.  It  hears  the  demand  for  the  obliteration  of  everything 
that  marks  our  Christian  character  ;  the  demand  that  as  there  is  no  acknow¬ 
ledgment  of  God  in  the  Constitution,  there  must  be  none  in  the  halls  of  Con¬ 
gress  ;  that  as  there  is  no  acknowledgment  of  Christianity  in  the  written 
instrument,  there  must  be  none  in  our  army  or  navy,  or  in  prisons  ;  that  the 
Bible  must  be  expelled  from  our  courts  and  schools  to  make  them  conform  to 
the  Constitution.  And  already  the  response  has  begun  to  sound  out  over  our 
States.  The  hundreds  of  delegates  from  the  majority  of  the  States  of  the 
Union  gathered  here  to-day,  their  number  every  hour  increasing,  give  expres¬ 
sion  to  the  deepest  feelings  of  patriotic  hearts.  The  answer  to  the  “Demands 
of  Liberalism  ”  is  an  earnest  and  determined  “  No  !  ”  Our  fathers  founded 
Christian  institutions.  These  are  the  sources  of  our  prosperity,  the  guarantees 
of  our  liberty.  For  the  sake  of  these  and  their  blessed  fruits,  the  written  Con¬ 
stitution  was  framed.  It  was  made  for  them,  not  they  for  it.  The  dictate  of 
true  patriotism  and  statesmanship  is  clear.  The  Bible  must  not  be  cast  out  of 
our  schools  ;  our  Christian  laws  of  marriage,  and  of  the  Sabbath,  must  not  be 
abrogated  ;  the  oath  of  God  must  not  be  banished  from  our  courts  of  justice, 
and  all  this  to  make  the  administration  of  our  government  conform  to  the 
written  Constitution.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  we  shall  meet  the  ciisis  that  is 
upon  us  by  inserting  a  suitable  acknowledgment  of  God,  and  Chiistianity,  and 
the  Bible,  in  the  written  Constitution,  and  make  it  conform  to  our  common 
schools  and  all  the  other  essential  features  of  our  unwritten  Constitution.  To 
insure  peace  with  progress,  we  must ,  by  a  Religious  Amendment,  cause  the 
written  fundamental  law  of  the  nation  to  conform  to  the  Christian  facts  of  our 
national  life.  This  is  the  just,  seasonable,  and  necessary  movement,  for  the 
advancement  of  which  we  are  met  to-day. 


At  the  close  of  this  address,  the  Committee  on  Permanent  Organ¬ 
ization  presented  a  partial  report,  which  was  completed  at  a  subse¬ 
quent  session,  and  is  as  follows : 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  CONVENTION. 


11 


President  of  the  Convention: 

Hon.  FELIX  R.  BRUNOT,  of  Pittsburg. 

V  ice-Presidents  : 

John  Alexander,  Esq.,  of  Pennsylvania. 

Hon.  John  Davidson,  of  New  Jersey. 

Hon.  H.  D.  Maxwell,  of  Pennsylvania. 

Rev.  A.  A.  Miner,  D.  D.,  of  Massachusetts. 

L.  M.  Philips,  Esq.,  of  Illinois. 

Rev.  Dr.  J.  Banvard,  of  New  Jersey. 

Rev.  Dr.  S.  H.  Tyng,  of  New  York. 

Rev.  Dr.  J.  Edwards,  of  Illinois. 

James  Wiggins,  Esq.,  of  New  York. 

Rev.  S.  O.  Wylie,  D.  I). ,  of  Pennsylvania. 

J.  J.  Swan  wick,  Esq.,  of  Illinois. 

R.  B.  Sterling,  Esq. ,  of  Pennsylvania. 
Walter  T.  Miller,  Esq.,  of  New  York. 
David  Boyd,  Esq. ,  of  Ohio. 

Hon.  Thos.  W.  Bipknell,  Rhode  Island. 

Rev.  George  Taylor,  New  York. 

Rev.  D.  C.  Faris,  Minnesota. 

Rev.  J.  K.  M’Kallip,  Kentucky. 

Prof.  Ferrier,  Pennsylvania. 

Rev.  W.  C.  Williamson,  Iowa. 

John  Roney,  Esq.,  West  Virginia. 

Rev.  M.  S.  Terry,  New  York. 

D.  O.  Brown,  Esq.,  Maryland. 

Rev.  J.  R.  Hill,  Michigan. 

Rev.  J.  P.  Lytle,  Ohio. 

Dr.  S.  S.  Greene,  Indiana. 

Jas.  Thompson,  Esq.,  Kansas. 

Rev.  C.  D.  Trumbull,  Iowa. 

J.  M.  M’Cutcheon,  Esq.,  Colorado  Territory. 

Secretary : 

Rev;  SAMUEL  COLLINS,  of  Pennsylvania. 

Assistant  Secretaries: 

Rev.  N.  R.  Johnston. 

Rev.  W.  H.  Tiffany. 

Rev.  W.  H.  Knox. 


The  President,  on  taking  the  Chair,  delivered  the  following 
address : 


ADDRESS  OF  MR.  BRUNOT. 

We  assemble  to-day,  not  as  Republicans  or  Democrats,  not  as  Protestants  or 
Catholics,  not  as  Methodists,  Baptists,  Presbyterians,  or  Episcopalians — not 
as  the  representatives  of  any  political  party  or  religious  society,  but  as  citizens 


12 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONTENTION. 


of  the  Republic,  who,  ignoring  differences  on  all  points,  unite  in  the  desire  to 
perfect  the  great  fundamental  law  under  which  we  enjoy  the  privileges  of  this 
meeting. 

We  believe  that  it  is  essential  to  the  perfection  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  that  it  should  acknowledge  God,  the  source  of  all  wisdom  and 
power,  and  by  the  recognition  of  Christ  and  the  Divine  law  distinctly  assert 
the  Christian  religion  as  the  foundation  principle  of  the  government.  We 
believe  not  only  that  this  expression  of  fealty  is  due  from  the  nation  to  the 
Divine  source  of  all  her  prosperity,  but  that  the  Religious  Amendment  of  the 
Constitution  is  essential  to  the  preservation  of  Liberty. 

We  regard  with  feelings  of  the  highest  admiration  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States,  and  magnify  the  wisdom  and  patriotism  of  its  framers.  Their 
work  stands  unequalled  among  all  similiar  political  instruments  of  other  na¬ 
tions  known  to  history.  But  no  human  work  was  ever  absolutely  perfect  at 
its  origin;  neither  was  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  great  men 
who  formed  it  recognized  this  fact  in  providing  for  its  amendment,  and  amend¬ 
ments  have  already  been  made,  the  wisdom  of  which  fewT  will  gainsay.  There 
is  hardly  an  educated  man  in  America  to-day  who  could  not  frame  a  simple 
clause,  which,  had  it  been  originally  inserted  in  that  Constitution  devised  to 
“  establish  justice  ”  and  “  promote  domestic  tranquility,”  would  have  saved 
the  nation  from  a  deluge  of  blood,  and  to  her  coffers  an  argosy  of  treasure. 
It  is  no  slur  upon  the  fathers  of  the  Constitution  that  this  was  not  done  by 
them.  It  was  perhaps  beyond  the  compass  of  human  prescience.  But  the 
omission  and  the  result  serve  to  illustrate  the  fallibility  of  the  highest  type  of 
human  wisdom,  and  will  suggest  to  the  most  common  mind  that  the  work  of 
the  Convention  of  1787  was  not  perfect. 

That  skepticism  pervaded  the  minds  of  the  leading  statesmen  of  the  day  is 
undeniable.  Its  malign  influence  upon  the  deliberations  of  the  Convention 
becomes  painfully  apparent  when  we  read  that  the  proposition  of  Dr.  Frank¬ 
lin  that  “  prayers  imploring  the  assistance  of  Heaven,  and  its  blessing  upon  our 
deliberations,  be  held  in  this  assembly,”  received  but  few  affirmative  votes. 

Their  political,  literary,  and  social  relations  with  France  were  of  the 
closest  character — and  the  atmosphere  of  France  was  breathed  by  our  states¬ 
men.  Her  great  infidel  writers  were  then  sowing  the  wind  which  seemed  to 
that  people  the  very  breath  of  liberty.  It  grew  into  the  whirlwind  of  the 
French  Revolution.  The  framers  of  our  Constitution  felt  the  breeze,  but 
knew  not  of  the  storm.  We  have  seen  the  storm,  and  the  awful  record  of  it 
stands  to  our  warning. 

The  National  Association  represented  by  this  Convention  fully  recognizes 
the  constitutional  method  by  which  this  religious  amendment  is  to  be  effected. 
As  it  is  the  duty  of  every  man  to  labor  for  the  good  of  his  fellow  men  so  far  as 
he  can  do  so  consistently  with  his  duty  to  himself  and  his  family,  so  also  it  is 
his  duty  to  labor  for  the  perfection  of  his  nation.  In  attempting  this  service 
to  our  country,  we  perform  one  of  our  chief  duties  to  God,  and  in  serving 
God  we  but  serve  our  country. 

If  then  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  not  originally  perfect,  if 
its  framers  contemplated  its  future  amendment,  and  provided  a  mode  for 
amending  it  under  which  important  amendments  have  already  been  made, 
and  if  we  believe  that  a  further  amendment  is  of  paramount  importance  and 
demanded  by  the  Christian  civilization  of  the  age,  and  that  it  is  our  duty  to 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  BRUNOT. 


13 


labor  to  effect  it — manifestly  we  assemble  for  a  legitimate  purpose,  in  a  pa¬ 
triotic  spirit,  to  pursue  our  object  in  a  lawful  way. 

That  God  is  the  Divine  author  and  source  of  all  civil  power  accords  with 
the  opinion  of  the  greatest  men  in  all  ages  of  the  world.  St.  Paul  says,  “  The 
powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God,”  (Rom.  xiih,  1,)  and  the  words  are  but  a 
summary  of  the  teachings  of  Holy  Writ  on  that  subject.  An  eminent  Church 
of  England  divine  (Dr.  Jortin,  cited  by  Dr.  Wines,  page  85)  says,  “  Govern¬ 
ment,  both  in  Church  and  State,  is  of  God  ;  the  forms  of  it  are  of  men  and 
the  great  truth  thus  tersely  expressed  is  concurrent  with  the  views  of  all 
distinguished  writers  on  the  subject.  Nor  do  the  most  eminent  writers  on 
political  science  differ.  Blackstone  says,  “  Man,  considered  as  a  creature, 
must  necessarily  be  subject  to  the  laws  of  his  Creator,  for  he  is  entirely  a  de¬ 
pendent  being,”  and,  “This  will  of  his  Maker  is  called  the  law"  of  nature.” 
(Sec.  ii.  39  and  40.) 

Yattel  adopts  Cicero’s  assertion  of  the  fact  as  the  motto  on  his  title  page, 
and  in  the  text  of  his  work  affirms,  that  “  the  law  of  nations  is  no  other  than 
the  laic  of  nature  applied  to  nations,”  and  also  shows  that  “  the  law  of  nations 
is  the  law  of  God,”  and  that  “the  entire  nation  is  bound  to  respect  them  in  all 
her  proceedings.” 

Puffendorf  declares  that  “  God,  the  author  of  the  law  of  nature,  must  of 
right  be  regarded  as  the  author  of  civil  society,  and  consequently  the  sov¬ 
ereign  power  without  which  it  could  not  exist.” 

Barbeyrac,  an  authority  hardly  inferior  to  his  principal,  affirms  the  same 
thing  in  the  second  paragraph  of  his  introduction  to  Puffendorf,  and  quotes 
Burlamaqui  and  other  high  authorities  in  support. 

Nor  is  this  unanimity  of  sentiment  confined  to  modern  masters  of  political 
science.  Plato  declares  that  “All  laws  come  from  God ;  no  mortal  man  was 
the  founder  of  laws.” 

Heraclitus  says,  “  All  hujnan  laws  are  nourished  by  one  Divine  law  ;”  and 
Cicero  tells  us  that  “  law  is  nothing  else  than  right  reason,  derived  from  the 
Divinity,  and  government  an  emanation  from  the  Divine  mind.” 

If  any  truth  may  be  established  by  the  concurrence  of  human  authorities 
this  truth  is  undoubtedly  established. 

Nor,  in  my  opinion,  is  this  view  of  the  ultimate  origin  of  civil  power  incon¬ 
sistent  with  the  affirmation  as  found  in  the  Constitution  of  Pennsylvania — that 
“  All  power  is  inherent  in  the  people.”  But  they  must  be  taken  together,  the 
latter  being  qualified  by  the  former. 

God  makes  no  man  a  slave  to  his  fellow-man.  Men  are  born  free  and  equal. 
Yet  no  man  has  a  right  to  govern  himself  according  to  his  own  will.  God 
creates  in  him  a  social  necessity  which  finds  its  expression  in  government. 
This  government  is  an  ordinance  of  God  ;  its  form  is  of  man.  When  two,  or 
a  hundred,  or  a  million,  come  together  to  devise  measures  for  mutual  protec¬ 
tion  and  the  better  pursuit  of  happiness,  each  delegates  to  all  the  others  for 
the  general  good  a  portion  of  his  inherent  rights.  They  form  a  government 
with  the  consent  of  the  governed  ;  a  body  politic  with  individual  attributes 
and  powers ;  a  State,  a  personality,  responsible  to  God  and  to  the  governed. 
As  the  individual  man  may  not  rightly  ignore  the  Divine  source  of  power,  so 
may  not  the  State,  which  is  an  aggregation  of  divinely  derived  power. 

That  Almighty  God  is  the  source  of  all  civil  power  in  the  State,  is  not  only 
in  accordance  with  Holy  Writ  and  the  teaching  of  illustrious  writers  on  po- 


14 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


litieal  science  but  it  accords  with  the  sentiment  of  the  American  people  and 
ligious  faHhaCkn°W  edS‘nS  Hlm  haS  ever  bee“  a  part  0f  their  p°litical  and  re- 

the°M Itflower' *7  °f  ^?b6r’  162°'  the  PIy“  ootanta,  «n  the  cabin  of 
hpcine  "  ]  ’  T  .W, 1C 1  t  lC-V  bad  not  ,aiKled,  formed  a  government,  which 

for8  he  TorlTc  d  Ia  ‘he  “ame  °f  God.  Amen.”  “  Having  undertaken 
w  F  y  f  G  ’  and  tbe  advancement  of  the  Christian  religion  *  *  * 
We  do  by  these  presents  solemnly  and  mutually,  in  the  presence  of  God  and 

nLtic”anT  ’  C0Ter  aDCl  C°mbine  °UrSelVeS  in‘o  a  civil  body 

politic.  The  principles  expressed  in  this  first  constitution  are  found  in  those 
of  each  of  the  thirteen  original  States. 

6thV1774  hwH°ntinental  ?nf^SS  assembled  0“  ‘he  second  day,  September 
to  dnln  \ he r  Unanimoufy  Resolved  that  the  Rev.  Mr.  Duche  be  desired 

given  to  Mr  HncfreotW  Prayf  ”  “d  subsequently  a  vote  of  thanks  was 
g  n  to  Mr.  Duche  for  performing  Divine  service.”  When  the  clouds  of 

“mm  thlCke“.  ar0Und  them  we  flnd  tbe  Continental  Congress  on 

proclamltton  In’  T?  s  a  °f  fasting  and  Pray»-  They  issued  a 

worid  hv  Hl'  °°T  th68e  WOrd3:  “Asthe  Great  Governor  of  the 

course  of  nature*11**6™6  ™1VersaI  Providence,  not  only  conducts  the 

acknowledge  ]„•«  •  F1"  bemg  at  a11  times  our  indispensable  duty  to 

acknowledge  Ins  superintending  power,”  &c.  J 

T,mhe  ?!flaratiFn  0f  independence  was  made,  “  appealing  to  the  Supreme 

3  Tht  °f  m  '™rld’”and  “  exPressing  a  firm  reliance  on  Divine  Providence  ” 
e  ratification  of  the  Articles  of  Confederation  of  1778  by  the  original 

“r8’  begin?  Tith  the  S°,emQ  WOTdS'  “  A“d  whereas,  if  Iial  pSed 

resenUn  ‘° ^  beart  °f  tbe  «e  rep- 

tufio^TofTh  had  the  opP°rtUnity  t0  examine  all  the  past  and  existing  consti- 
ttat  neal  anT6  T*  ^  U“i0n’ bUt  °“  the  autb°ri‘y  of  others  assert 

be^Ld  Td°T  “le,rebel,ion  ™s  upon  us,  the  nation  humbled  herself 

President  of  Ihf  Tb  FTlldF  -her  dePel,dence  upon  his  power;  and  when  the 
President  of  the  United  States  invoked  the  “gracious  favor  of  Almighty  God  ” 

ment  of  her  DW  TTw  ‘n  ^  °f  *he  nati6a  for  bis  “  acknLtt 

the  South  •  for  one  fU,r  fi  Cei‘amly  there  was  no  censure  on  this  point  from 
,  ne  of  the  first  Confederate  amendments  to  the  Constitution 
was  to  insert  the  words,  “invoking  the  favor  of  Almighty  God  ” 

It  has  been  claimed  that  the  State  is  a  personality  with  individual  rights 
obligations  duties  and  responsibilities.  This  has  been  denied,  but  it  seems  to 

are  bodies  poHthf7  »  Vatte?  afflrms  U  in  the  words,  “  Nations  or  States 

,  ,  r,  ^  ‘  buck  a  society  has  her  affairs  and  her  interests  • 

person  who  resoIutions  1°  common,  thus  becoming  a  moral ! 

suSiWe  °f  “  U“de“nS  and  will  peculiar  to  herself,  and  ! 

Blackstone  Ch  Tv,  0bllgatioi,s'”  P»ffendorf,  BurlamaquC  Barbeyrac, 
such  »  y  o  e  authonties.  agree  upon  this,  and  their  opinion  on 

If  flienAlmiXtv  C  Conclusive  by  men  learned  in  political  law. 

’ tbe  -  Almighty  God  is  the  source  of  all  political  power ;  if  the  individual 

n  is  bound  to  acknowledge  his  dependence  on  God;  if  the  State  is  a  person 
ality  With  obligations,  responsibilities  and  duties  ;  if  the  acknowledgment  of 
these  tacts  is  in  accordance  with  the  general  prevalent  practice  of  the  Govern- 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  BRUNOT. 


15 


ment  of  the  United  States  ;  if  it  has  always  accorded  with  the  spirit  and  con¬ 
science  of  the  nation  and  the  people ;  if  we  are  a  Christian  people — let  us 
say  so. 

As  I  believe  that  the  distinct  assertion  in  the  Constitution  of  freedom  of 
conscience  and  religion  is  an  essential  to  the  preservation  of  liberty,  so  also  I 
believe  that  the  assertion  of  the  Christian  religion,  the  source  and  origin  of 
this  priceless  doctrine,  is  of  like  necessity  to  its  preservation.  We  assert  in  the 
Constitution  the  principle  of  freedom  of  conscience  and  popular  sovereignty. 
Do  not  the  American  people  think  and  act  in  accord  with  these  principles  ? 
Are  they  not  dear  to  every  patriotic,  liberty-loving  citizen,  and  is  it  within  the 
compass  of  human  possibility  to  obliterate  them  from  the  great  heart  of  the 
people?  Who  will  say  that,  because  of  this  universal  acceptance  their  expres¬ 
sion  in  the  Constitution  is  unnecessary  ?  And  yet  there  are  good  men  who 
oppose  the  religious  amendment  solely  upon  this  ground.  I  would  give  my 
body  to  be  burned  sooner  than  aid  to  take  away  from  the  Constitution  its 
guarantees  of  freedom  of  conscience  in  religion.  I  see  that  Constitution  stand 
like  a  tree  with  branches,  upon  which  are  inscribed  the  relations  they  hold  to 
a  great  vital  principle  at  its  heart — beautiful  in  its  branches — beautiful  in  their 
symmetrical  combination;  but  it  is  to  the  eye  a  cut  tree  drawing  its  sustenance 
from  artificial  sources.  And  yet  its  roots  are  deeply  planted  in,  and  its  suste¬ 
nance  drawn  from,  the  soil  of  Christianity  from  which  it  sprang.  I  would  in¬ 
scribe  Christianity  upon  its  sturdy  roots,  and  upon  its  massive  trunk  Almighty 
God,  by  whose  supreme  and  gracious  power  alone  it  may  stand  perpetually  for 
tne  enlightenment  of  the  nations. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I  thank  }mu  for  the  honor  you  have  been 
pleased  to  confer  upon  me.  That  the  course  of  your  deliberations,  and  the 
conclusions  you  may  reach,  will  comport  with  the  dignity  and  importance  of 
the  object  for  which  you  are  assembled,  I  cannot  doubt ;  and  in  this  belief  I 
assume  the  honorable  place  you  have  given  me,  assured  of  your  aid  in  my 
efforts  rightly  to  perform  its  duties,  and  your  forbearance  should  I  in  some 
things  fail. 


A  Committee  on  Resolutions  was  next  appointed,  as  follows : 
Rev.  J.  Edwards,  D.  D.,  Chairman ,  Rev.  A.  A.  Miner,  D.  D., 
Rev.  M.  S.  Terry,  Hon.  John  Davidson,  Hon.  H.  D.  Maxwell, 
Rev.  J.  P.  Lytle,  and  Rev.  T.  P.  Stevenson. 

The  Executive  Committee  of  the  National  Association  was  ap¬ 
pointed  a  Committee  on  Business  of  the  Convention. 


In  pursuance  of  the  programme  previously  arranged,  the  Rev. 
Dr.  E.  R.  Craven,  of  Newark,  N.  J.,  then  delivered  an  address  on 
“  The  Religious  Defect  of  the  Constitution.” 

ADDRESS  OF  DR.  CRAVEN. 

Mr.  President  :  I  yield  to  no  man  in  the  love  I  bear  my  country,  and  in 
my  admiration  of  the  great  men  who  formed  our  Constitution,  and  of  the 
Constitution  they  formed.  That  instrument  I  regard  as  one  of  the  master- 


16 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


pieces  of  human  workmanship.  But  no  human  work  is  perfect.  In  my 
humble  judgment  there  is  a  defect  in  that  glorious  instrument,  and  I  am  here 
as  the  friend  of  my  country  to  declare  it,  and  to  plead  for  its  correction.  That 
defect  is  its  failure  to  recognize  the  sovereignty  of  Jehovah  over  the  nation. 

By  defect  we  mean  not  ipere  lack,  but  the  lack  of  that  which  is  proper  to  a 
person  or  thing.  In  declaring  that  the  Constitution  is  defective  in  that  it  does 
not  recognize  the  sovereignty  of  Jehovah,  it  is  contemplated  that  it  should 
contain  such  a  recognition ;  and  to  the  establishment  of  this  fact  my  argument 
will  first  be  directed. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  argument,  it  is  proper  that  certain  preliminary 
lemaiks  should  be  made.  And  first,  as  to  the  assumptions  of  the  argument.  I 
assume  that  a  personal  God  exists,  and  that  the  Bible  contains  a  revelation  of 
His  will.  My  argument  this  afternoon  is  with  those  only  who  admit  these 
facts.  I  may  further  state  that  in  affirming  that  our  Constitution  is  defective 
in  the  respect  mentioned,  it  is  not  affirmed  that  we  are  not  a  religious  people; 
on  the  contrary,  the  assumption  of  the  fact  that  we  are  such  a  people  essen¬ 
tially  underlies  the  position  that  we  ought  to  acknowledge  Jehovah  as  our 
king ;  were  it  otherwise,  such  an  acknowledgment  would  be  hypocrisy.  Nor 
is  it  implied  that  the  framers  of  our  Constitution,  or  g  majority  of  them,  were 
not  religious  men  ;  good  men  sometimes  make  mistakes.  Nor  is  it  implied 
that,  so  long  as  the  defect  exists,  we  are  discharged  from  the  duty  of  allegiance. 
The  fact  that  a  father  may  be  an  atheist  does  not  discharge  the  children  from 
the  divinely-imposed  obligation  to  honor  him  ;  and  it  should  also  be  remem¬ 
bered  that  it  was  to  a  heathen  emperor  that  an  Apostle  exhorted  Christians  to 
subject  themselves,  declaring  that  the  powers  that  be  are  ordained  of  God. 
With  these  preliminary  remarks,  I  proceed  to  my  argument. 

I.  The  Constitution  should  contain  a  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of  God. 

What  is  the  Constitution?  Of  course  a  complete  definition  of  this  instru¬ 
ment  cann  A  be  expected  on  this  occasion,  nor  am  I  the  person  to  give  it.  All 
I  shall  attempt  to  do  is,  to  present  it  in  one  of  its  aspects.  Justice  Story  has 
set  forth  in  his  great  commentary  that  it  is  not  “  a  mere  compact,  treaty,  con¬ 
federation  of  the  States  composing  the  Union,”  but  that  it  is  “  a  form  of  gov¬ 
ernment  which,  having  been  ratified  by  a  majority  of  the  people  in  all  the 
States,  is  obligatory  upon  them,  as  the  prescribed  rule  of  the  sovereign  power ,  to 
the  extent  of  its  provisions.”  {Story  on  the  Constitution ,  B.  III.,  ch.  III.,  §  350. ) 
It  is  then  manifestly,  according  to  this  distinguished  Judge,  the  utterance  of 
the  nation  as  a  nation  ;  and  it,  together  with  its  amendments,  is  the  only  such 
utterance.  But  this,  in  view  of  the  circumstances  in  which  it  was  framed  and 
adopted,  involves  two  things :  first,  that  it  is  a  formal  declaration  before  the 
world  of  the  fact  of  completed,  undivided  nationality  ;  and,  second,  that  its 
adoption  was  an  assumption  of  the  prerogatives  and  duties  of  such  nationality. 

But  what  is  a  Nation?  It  is  not,  as  some  suppose,  a  mere  aggregation  of 
individuals  bound  together  by  social  compact  ;  it  is  a  company  of  related 
individuals,  an  organism— a  body  having  many  members  and  pervaded  by  a 
common  life.  The  individuals  who  compose  it,  though  they  may  have  indi¬ 
vidual  differences,  have  certain  common  characteristics— physical,  mental  and 
moral— common  hopes  and  aspirations.  Cast  a  million  of  men,  women  and 
children,  not  already  bound  by  national  ties,  into  such  a  country  as  the 
Valley  of  the  Mississippi,  and  you  have  not  a  nation .  The  mass  of  individuals 
may  indeed  contain  the  germ  of  a  nation,  but  in  order  to  nationality  they 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  CRAVEN. 


17 


must  be  placed  under  a  process  of  discipline  :  they  must  be  placed  under 
special  discipline  in  order  to  the  production  of  some  special  form  of  life.  In 
this  process,  the  weak  and  those  who  have  no  aptitude  for  the  special  form 
of  life  to  be  produced  will  be  winnowed  out ;  the  strong  in  whom  the  aptitude 
exists  will  be  developed,  and  not  only  so,  but  they  will  be  bound  together  by 
common  efforts  and  by  common  trials  ;  and  in  the  end  a  nation  will  come 
forth — an  organism  fitted  to  take  into  itself  and  to  assimilate  the  individuals 
who  may  afterwards  be  brought  into  connection  with  it.  Nations  are  growths , 
not  mere  voluntary  associations. 

Of  such  organisms,  God  is  the  alone  author.  It  lies  upon  the  surface  of  the 
Bible,  in  reference  to  a  pation,  that  He  plants,  He  disciplines,  He  guides,  He 
gives  prosperity,  He  chastises,  He  plucks  up,  He  destroys.  These  declarations 
of  His  word  are  exemplified  throughout  the  whole  course  of  history — and  in 
the  history  of  no  nation  more  completely  than  that  of  our  own.  ft  needs  not 
that,  before  this  audience,  I  should  recite  God’s  dealings  with  us.  How  in  the 
beginning  He  formed  this  land  for  the  reception  of  a  free  people,  and  kept  it 
secret  till  the  time  for  the  establishment  of  this  people  had  come.  How  in 
another  continent  He  prepared  the  seed  that  here  was  to  be  planted  ;  how  in 
process  of  time  He  brought  our  fathers*  here  ^nd  planted  them  in  thirteen 
colonies  ;  how  by  discipline,  by  exposure  to  hardness,  to  struggle  with  the 
elements  of  nature,  with  savage  beasts,  and  with  more  savage  men,  He  at  once 
bound  them  together  in  separate  brotherhoods,  and  developed  in  them  the 
spirit  of  courage,  energy,  self-reliance,  independence,  in  short,  trained  and 
hardened  them  into  republics  ;  how,  in  process  of  time,  by  the  struggles,  the 
fires,  the  twistings,  the  hammerings  of  the  revolution  and  following  events, 
He  bound  together,  twisted,  welded  into  one  living  mass,  the  different  fibres 
He  had  separately  formed,  and  thus  formed  and  established  this  nation,  in  the 
home  He  had  previously  prepared  for  it. 

The  adoption  of  the  Federal  Constitution  was  not  the  adoption  of  a  social 
compact  forming  a  nation — that  God  had  formed  ;  it  was  the  solemn  declara¬ 
tion  before  the  other  nations  of  the  earth  of  the  fact  of  perfected  nationality, 
and  the  solemn  assumption  of  the  prerogatives  and  duties  of  such  nationality. 
This  declaration,  this  assumption,  were  not  made  in  the  Declaration  of  Inde¬ 
pendence  ;  that  was  the  declaration  of  thirteen  affiliated  colonies.  They  were 
not  made  in  the  Articles  of  Confederation  ;  that  was  a  treaty  between  thirteen 
mutually  independent  States.  It  was  not  until  the  period  of  the  adoption  of 
the  Constitution  that  the  Providential  work  of  forming  the  nation  was  com¬ 
pleted;  and  it  was  then,  and  not  until  then,  that  the  declaration  before  the 
world  of  the  fact  of  one  undivided  nationality  was  made. 

It  was  meet  that,  at  such  a  time,  the  Nation  God  had  formed  and  blessed, 
should,  in  the  instrument  in  which  they  assumed  what  He  had  given,  formally 
declare  their  gratitude  and  their  allegiance  to  Him  as  their  Sovereign.  Nay, 
further,  I  ask,  in  view  of  the  preamble  of  the  Constitution,  which  is  in  these 
words  :  “We,  the  people  of  the  United  States,  in  order  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union,  establish  justice,  insure  domestic  tranquility,  provide  for  the  common 
defense,  promote  the  general  welfare,  and  secure  the  blessings  of  liberty  to 
ourselves  and  our  posterity,  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitution  for  the 
United  States  of  America  ” — in  view  of  this  preamble  in  which  is  set  forth  as 
the  object  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  the  securing  of  the  very  bless¬ 
ings  which  in  His  Scriptures  Jehovah  declares  that  He  holds  in  His  own 


18 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


hand in  view  of  this  preamble  I  ask  if,  at  such  a  moment,  the  failure  to 
recognize  His  sovereignty  was  not  an  ignoring  of  that  sovereignty,  if  it  was 
not  tantamount  to  the  claim  that  by  their  own  wisdom  they  had  been  guided, 
that  by  their  own  strength  they  had  been  established,  that  by  their  own  wis¬ 
dom  and  strength  they  were  to  attain  unto,  and  retain  further  prosperity. 

And  still  further,  we  all  know,  as  has  been  set  forth  to-day  by  our  President, 
that  at  the  period  of  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution  the  principles  that  were 
then  moving  France  were  widely  disseminated  throughout  our  own  land. 
Many  of  our  best  men  believed  that  religion  was  a  matter  that  concerned 
merely  the  individual ;  that  nations  as  such  were  mere  associations,  the  crea¬ 
tures  of  social  compact,  owing  allegiance  only  to  thepiselves.  I  verily  believe 
that,  under  this  erroneous  idea,  a  recognition  of  the  Divine  sovereignty — nay, 
the  bare  mention  of  the  name  of  God — was  excluded  from  the  instrument. 

II.  But  does  this  Constitution  fail  to  recognize  the  Divine  sovereignt}^  ? 
This  question  brings  me  to  the  second  division  of  my  argument.* 

That  it  does  so  would  seem  to  be  evident  upon  a  mere  perusal.  The  name 
of  God  does  not  appear  in  it.  The  preamble,  where  we  naturally  look  for 
such  a  lecognition,  impliedly  claims  the  wisdom  and  power  by  which  we 
stand  for  the  people.  There^are  those,  however,  who  contend  that  such  a 
recognition,  though  not  directly,  is  impliedly  made.  The  arguments  of  these 
I  shall  briefly  consider. 

1.  It  is  contended  by  some  that  such  a  recognition  is  impliedly  made,  in  that 
the  Constitution  requires  an  oath  as  a  qualification  for  office.  An  oath,  say 
they,  is  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Being,  and  the  requirement  of  an  oath  is  an 
implied  recognition  of  His  supreme  authority. 

In  answer,  I  remark  :  First,  That  even  though  the  Constitution  require  an 
oath  in  the  true  and  proper  meaning  of  that  term,  such  requirement  does  not 
necessarily  involve  a  recognition  of  the  Divine  Sovereignty  over  the  nation. 
A  voluntary  association,  ignoring  all  allegiance  to  God  as  an  association ,  may 
still  deem  it  wise,  before  entrusting  an  individual  with  important  interests,  to 
bind  his  conscience  by  an  appeal  to  a  Being  whose  authority  over  him  as  an 
individual  he  recognizes.  But,  secondly ,  The  Constitution  does  not  require  an 
oath,  in  the  true  and  proper  meaning  of  that  term.  The  oath  that  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  prescribes  to  be  taken  by  the  President  of  the  United  States  is  in  these 
words:  “I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faithfully  execute  the 
office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  and  will,  to  the  best  of  my  ability, 
preserve,  protect  and  defend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States”— you 
naturally  expect  to  hear  following,  the  time-honored  formula,  “  So  help  me 
God,”  but  it  is  not  there ;  and  a  subsequent  provision  forbids  that  it  should 
be  there,  viz. :  in  Art.  A I.,  Sec.  3,  where,  immediately  after  the  requirement 
that  all  officers  “  shall  be  bound  by  oath  or  affirmation  to  support  the  Consti¬ 
tution,  it  is  provided  that  “  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualifi¬ 
cation  to  any  office  or  public  trust  under  the  United  States.”  How,  Mr. 
President,  I  do  not  deny  that  any  man  in  taking  the  oath  prescribed  by  the 
Constitution,  may,  if  he  so  choose,  make  an  appeal  to  the  Supreme  Being  ; 
but,  manifestly,  under  the  force  of  that  proviso,  he  need  not  make  such  an 
appeal  unless  he  chooses — the  Constitution  does  not  require  it.  On  Tuesday 


*  The  substance  of  the  following  portion  of  this  argument  may  be  found 
by  the  speaker,  and  published  by  the  Christian  Statesman  in  1868. 


in  a  tract  written 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  CRAYEN. 


19 


next  another  inauguration  is  to  take  place.  President  Grant  may,  if  he  so 
choose,  appeal  to  God  ;  but  even  as  he  takes  the  oath  required,  he  may  pro¬ 
claim  himself  an  atheist ,  and  there  is  no  power  on  earth  that  can  stay  his 
inauguration.  The  Constitution  does,  in  terms,  require  an  oath,  but  by  the 
proviso  quoted,  it  degrades  it  to  the  low  platform  of  a  solemn  promise — the 
oath  that  it  requires  is  emasculated. 

2.  In  the  second  place,  it  is  contended  that  the  Constitution  impliedly  recog¬ 
nizes  the  Divine  authority  in  that  it  recognizes  Sunday  (in  a  parenthesis  !)  as  a 
day  retired  from  business.  (See  Art.  I. ,  Sec.  7.) 

The  answer  is  patent.  In  the  first  place,  even  though  the  proviso  contem¬ 
plates  the  divinely  imposed  obligation  of  the  Sabbath,  it  would  not,  necessarily, 
imply  a  recognition  of  the  sovereignty  of  God  over  the  nation.  A  voluntary 
association,  if  it  act  wisely,  will  make  provision  not  to  interfere  with  the  per¬ 
sonal  obligations  of  its  members.  But,  secondly ,  the  proviso  does  not  neces¬ 
sarily  contemplate  the  divinely  imposed  obligation  of  the  Sabbath  even  upon 
individuals.  An  atheist  would  vote  for  a  law  forbidding  murder,  without 
thereby  recognizing  even  the  existence  of  Him  who  ordained  “  Thou  shalt  not 
kill.”  It  is  evident,  upon  merely  natural  considerations,  that  man  needs  a  rest 
day.  The  seventh  day,  as  a  rest  day,  is,  to  say  the  least,  as  good  as  any  other. 
Even  an  atheistic  legislator  in  making  provision  for  a  rest  day,  and  finding  the 
division  of  time  into  weeks  already  established,  would,  if  he  acted  wisely, 
adopt  the  arrangement  already  made  to  his  hand. 

3.  Again,  it  is  contended  that  the  (so-called)  concluding  clause  of  the  Con¬ 
stitution  does  most  expressly  recognize  the  sovereignty  of  the  Lord  Jesus. 
The  clause  is  in  these  words:  “  Done  in  Convention,  by  the  unanimous  consent 
of  the  States  present,  the  seventeenth  day  of  September,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord 
one  thousand  seven  hundred  and  eighty-seven,  &c.” 

Now  I  remark,  in  the  first  place,  that  manifestly  this  clause  forms  no  part  of 
the  Constitution' as  adopted  by  the  people.  It  is  merely  an  attesting  clause 
adopted  by  the  Convention  that  framed  the  instrument ;  the  People  did  not 
adopt  the  attesting  clause  of  the  Convention.  But,  still  further,  the  words  in 
the  year  of  our  Lord,  formed  no  part  of  the  clause  as  adopted  by  the  Conven¬ 
tion.  Madison,  in  his  Minutes  of  the  Convention,  gives  the  clause  as  adopted, 
in  this  abbreviated  form,  “  Done  in  Convention  by  the  unanimous  consent  of 
the  States  present  the  17th  of  December,  &c.  In  witness  whereof  we  have 
hereunto  subscribed  our  names.”  [See  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.  L,  p.  31.7  ( Madison's 
Minutes) ;  also,  Vol.  V,  p.  555  ( Madison's  Debates ).]* 

W e  have  now  considered  all  the  grounds  upon  which  it  is  contended  that  the 
sovereignty  of  Jehovah  over  the  nation  is  recognized  in  the  Federal  Constitu¬ 
tion.  The  points  at  issue,  so  far  from  manifesting  the  truth  of  the  fact  claimed, 
serve  only  to  make  more  manifest  the  utter  exclusion  of  any  mention  even  of 
the  existence  of  God  in  the  instrument. 


*  The  history  of  the  clause  is  briefly  as  follows:  (see  Elliott's  Debates,  Vol.V Madison's  Debates, 
p.  555.)  The  Constitution  was  not  adopted  by  the  unanimous  vote  of  all  the  members  present 
in  the  Convention,  although  it  was  approved  by  the  majorities  of  the  representatives  of  all  the 
States.  It  was  feared  that  the  dissenting  members  would  refuse  to  sign  it.  The  clause  as 
adopted  was  moved  by  Dr.  Franklin  for  the  purpose  of  securing  a  unanimous  signature.  Madi¬ 
son  comments  as  follows:  “This  ambiguous  form  had  been  drawn  up  by  Mr.  Gouverneur 
Morris,  in  order  to  gain  the  dissenting  members,  and  put  into  the  hands  of  Dr.  Franklin,  that 
it  might  have  the  better  chance  of  success.”  Manifestly,  that  which  was  in  the  mind  of  the 
Convention  when  they  considered  and  passed  the  clause,  was  the  first  portion  and  not  the  mode 
of  signifying  the  date.  The  blank  was  subsequently  filled  out  in  compliance  with  prevailing 
custom,  probably  by  the  clerk. 


20 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


But  it  is  argued  by  some  that  any  defect  in  our  Constitution  is,  in  effect, 
healed  by  the  fact  that  prayers  were  daily  offered  in  the  Convention  that 
fiamed  it.  Would,  sir,  that  such  had  been  the  case — but,  alas!  it  was  not.  It 
is  geneially  believed  that  prayers  were  offered;  the  statement  that  such  was  the 
fact  is  made  in  many  of  our  histories.  I  well  remember  the  thrill  that  passed 
through  me,  when,  in  my  boyhood,  I  read  the4  account  that  is  still  current. 
How,  after  many  days  of  fruitless  wrangling,  Franklin  rose  in  the  Convention, 
and  after  a  noble  speech  offered  the  resolution  that  thereafter  prayers  implor¬ 
ing  Divine  guidance  should  daily  be  offered;  how  Washington,  advancing 
with  glowing  face  from  the  President’s  chair,  declared  that  the  offering  of 
prayer  was  what  was  needed,  and  then  put  tie  question,  which  was  unani¬ 
mously  carried;  how,  on  the  following  morning,  a  venerable  minister  led  the 
Convention  in  devotion  at  the  Mercy-seat;  and  how  the  clouds  of  discord 
passed  away,  and  the  body  in  unbroken  harmony  went  on  to  a  glorious  conclu¬ 
sion.  I  verily  believed  that  such  was  the  blessed  truth,  until  in  my  manhood  I 
discovered,  to  my  surprise  and  mortification,  that ’the  only  elements  of  truth  in 
the  narrative  were  that  Franklin  had  made  the  speech  and  offered  the  resolu¬ 
tion.  A  full  account  of  the  transaction  is  given  in  Madison's  Debates  ( Elliott's 
Debates,  Yol.  V.,  pp.  253-255),  which,  as  it  is  short,  I  will  read,  the  more 
especially  as  the  speech  of  Franklin,  which  is  still  preserved  in  his  own  hand¬ 
writing,  shows  the  opinion  of  that  wisest  among  the  fathers  of  the  Republic  of 
the  relation  of  a  nation  to  God. 


Mr.  President:  The  small  progress  we  have  made,  after  four  or  five  weeks’ 
close  attendance  and  continual  reasonings  with  each  other,  our  different  senti¬ 
ments  on  almost  every  question,  several  of  the  last  producing  as  many  noes  as 

ZeVS'  me&r1^s\a  melancholy  proof  of  the  imperfection  of  the  human  under¬ 
standing.  We  indeed  seem  to  feel  our  own  want  of  political  wisdom,  since  we 
have  been  running  all  about  in  search  of  it.  We  have  gone  back  to  ancient 
history  lor  models  of  government,  and  examined  the  different  forms  of  those 
fuLnh W  ilCh  haTm£  beeu.  originally  formed  with  the  seeds  of  their  own 
n0  lon?ei’  exist;  and  we  have  viewed  modern  states  all  round 
Europe,  but  find  none  ot  their  constitutions  suitable  to  our  circumstances. 

nniltiVaH  S1tnati°n  of  this  Assembly,  groping,  as  it  were,  in  the  dark  to  find 
political  truth,  and  scarce  able  to  distinguish  it  when  presented  to  us,  how  has 
appened,  sir  that  we  have  not  hitherto  once  thought  of  humbly  applying 

IhP  ,e/f  ;er  °ff1LlIh.ts  .to  hhiminate  our  understandings  ?  In  the  beginning  of 
le  contest  with  Britain,  when  we  were  sensible  of  danger,  we  had  dailv 
prayers  in  this  room  for  the  Divine  protection.  Our  prayers,  sir,  were  heard— 
and  they  Yere  graciously  answered.  All  of  us  who  were  engaged  in  the 

dJnSFin  mUS4l  mVe  observed  frequent  instances  of  a  superintending  Provi- 
ence  n  oui  favor.  To  that  kind  Providence  we  owe  this  happy  opportunity 
>  consulting  m  peace  on  the  Yneans  of  establishing  our  future  national  felicit/ 
And  have  we  now  forgotten  that  powerful  friend  ?-of,  do  we  imagine  we  no 
longer  need  its  (His)  assistance  ?  I  have  lived,  sir,  a  long  time ;  and  the  longer 
1  bv.e>  tbe  more  convincing  proofs  I  see  of  this  truth,  that  God  governs  inUte 
affairs  of  men.  And,  if  a  sparrow  cannot  fall  to  the  ground  without  His  notice 
is  it  probable  that  an  empire  can  rise  without  His  aid  ?  We  have  been  assured’ 
sir,  in  the  Sacred  Writings,  that,  “except  the  Lord  build  the  house  they  labor 
m  vain  that  build  it.  I  firmly  believe  this  ;  and  I  also  believe,  that  without 
is  concurring  aid  we  shall  succeed  in  this  political  building  no  better  than 
the  builders  ot  Babel ;  we  shall  become  divided  by  our  little  partial  local 
interests,  our  projects  will  be  confounded,  and  we  ourselves  shad  become  a 
reproach  and  a  by-worcl  down  to  future  ages.  And,  what  is  worse  mankind 
may  hereafter,  from  this  unfortunate  instance,  despair  of  establishing  o-overn- 
nent  by  human  wisdom,  and  leave  it  to  chance,  war,  and  conquest  °  & 

1  therefore  beg  leave  to  move, 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  GRAVEN. 


21 


That  henceforth,  prayers,  imploring  the  assistance  of  Heaven  and  its  blessing 
on  our  deliberations,  be  held  in  this  Assembly  every  morning  before  we  pro¬ 
ceed  to  business ;  and  that  one  or  more  of  the  clergy  of  this  city  be  requested 
to  officiate  in  that  service. 

[The  speaker  then  read  the  abstract  of  the  debate  in  the  Conven¬ 
tion  on  Franklin’s  motion,  and  the  following  remark  of  Madison, 
“  After  several  unsuccessful  attempts  for  silently  postponing  this 
matter  by  adjournment,  the  adjournment  was  at  length  carried  with¬ 
out  any  vote  on  the  motion.”  He  also  read  the  endorsement  made 
by  Franklin  on  the  MS.  of  the  speech  ( Works  of  Franklin ,  by 
Sparks,  Yol.  V.,  p.  155),  “The  Convention,  except  three  or  four 
persons,  thought  prayers  unnecessary  !”] 

There  are  some  who  argue  that  there  cannot  be  an  important  religious  defect 
in  our  Constitution,  since  God  has  given  us  unexampled  prosperity  under  it. 
These  take  for  granted  what  manifestly  is  not  true,  that  God  is  always  swift  to 
punish.  Why,  sir,  even  the  heathen  recognized  the  fact  that  “the  mills  of  the 
gods  grind  slowly.”  Gtod  forbears  to  punish.  Often  He  forbears  through  long 
years  that  He  may  give  space  for  repentance — that  through  chastisement  He 
may  lead  to  reformation.  And,  when  chastisement  has  proved  ineffective, 
He  often  still  forbears  to  destroy  those  who  resist  Him,  permitting  them  to  go 
on  to  high  degrees  of  prosperity,  that  His  own  power  and  sovereignty  may  be 
made  more  brightly  manifest  in  their  ultimate  destruction.  Let  us  not  forget 
that  He  permitted  the  tower  of  Babel  to  reach  a  mountain  height  before  He 
confounded  the  language  of  the  builders. 

And  here,  sir,  I  would  remark  that  the  reference  by  Franklin  to  Babel  is  to 
me  one  of  fearful  significance.  Our  Constitution  was  framed  as  was  Babel,  to 
secure  the  blessings  of  union — that  we  might  not  be  scattered  abroad.  Let  us 
not  forget  that  the  troubles  which  recently  afflicted  us — the  storm  that  burst 
like  a  tornado  over  this  land,  carrying  sorrow  to  every  home,  arose  from  confu¬ 
sion  of  language  in  regard  to  our  fundamental  instrument.  Methinks,  God  then 
chastised  us  that  He  might  teach  us  true  wisdom.  One  of  the  blessed  effects 
of  our  civil  war  was  that  it  brought  this  whole  people  to  the  feet  of  our  God 
with  the  acknowledgment  of  Him  as  Sovereign.  In  mercy  He  heard  our 
prayers,  He  removed  His  chastising  hand,  He  spared  our  union,  He  has  given 
us  space  for  repentance.  It  should  be  the  first  work  of  our  gratitude  and  our 
loyalty  to  correct  our  Constitution — that  formal  utterance  of  the  nation  before 
the  world — which  ignores  His  authority.  Let  us  beware  lest  a  forbearing  and 
insulted  God  arise  to  destroy  us. 

I  know  that  in  the  judgment  of  many  it  is  well  nigh  treason  to  speak  as  I 
have  spoken.  Sir,  I  repeat  the  remark  with  which  I  began  this  address,  that 
I  yield  to  no  man  in  love  for  my  country,  but  I  regard  it  as  no  mark  of  love  to 
shut  my  eyes  to  the  fact  of  disease  in  a  loved  object.  It  is  no  mark  of  love  to 
wife  or  mother  for  a  man  to  shut  his  eyes  to  the  fact  that  a  cancer  is  preying 
upon  her  vitals — nay,  love,  guided  bjr  true  wisdom  is  quick  to  perceive  the  fact, 
and,  if  need  be,  apply  the  knife  for  its  eradication.  I  think  I  perceive  vital  de¬ 
fect  in  our  Constitution,  and  in  love  I  proclaim  the  fact  as  in  order  to  its  re¬ 
moval.  O  !  that  the  nation  taught  by  the  past,  moved  by  gratitude  and  loyalty 
to  Him  who  has  blessed  us,  would  inscribe  Jehovah’s  name  upon  our  banner 


22 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


that  we  might  escape  His  future  judgments,  that  we  might  be  that  happy 
people  whose  acknowledged  God  is  the  Lord. 


At  the  close  of  Dr.  Craven’s  address,  it  was  resolved  that  the  ses¬ 
sions  of  the  Convention  be  from  9  to  12  o’clock  in  the  mornino*  • 
om  2  to  5  m  the  afternoon ;  and  in  the  evening  from  7\  o’clock 
until  such  time  as  the  Convention  may  see  fit  to  adjourn. 

Adjourned  to  meet  in  the  evening  at  7%  o’clock. 


EVENING  SESSION. 

The  Convention  having  re-assembled,  the  President  invited  Dr. 
Stephen  II.  Tyng  to  open  the  meeting  with  prayer. 

The  large  audience  present  was  then  addressed  by  the  Rev.  J.  H. 
Mcllvaine,  D.D.,  of  Newark,  N.  J. 

DR.  McILVAINE’S  ADDRESS. 

The  presence  of  so  large  an  assembly  here  to-night  indicates  an  increase  of 
interest  in  this  cause,  for  which  I  am  profoundly  thankful. 

There  are  some  who  think  there  is  a  sufficient  recognition  of  God,  and  of 
Christianity,  in  the  fact  that  the  Constitution  was  dated  “in  the  year  of  our 
Lord,  1 187.  But  the  expression,  strictly  considered,  does  nothing  more  than 
declare  the  era  of  the  world’s  history  in  which  the  Constitution  was  framed. 
Of  precisely  the  same  force  are  the  expressions,  “  The  Julian  Era,”  or  “  The 
Chaldean  Era,”  in  documents  written  in  those  ages.  The  question  is  whether 
this  is  a  sufficient  acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of  the  Christian  religion, 
and  that  question  I  am  willing  to  leave  to  the  judgment  of  sensible  men,  with¬ 
out  further  argument. 

The  question  is  :  Shall  we  have  such  an  amendment  as  shall  suitably  ac¬ 
knowledge  God,  and  not  have  our  Constitution  devoid  of  all  mention  of  His 
name  as  it  now  is  ?  .  In  considering  this,  I  would  notice  the  vast  significance 
and  influence  of  national  acts  as  compared  with  individual  acts.  An  act  of  the 
government  is  a  national  act ;  as  the  making  treaties,  declaring  war,  the  mak- 
ing  of  peace,  and  the  like.  Now  consider  for  one  moment,  the  immense  sig¬ 
nificance  of  such  acts  as  these  ;  what  immense  influences  they  exert  upon  the 
minds  and  destinies  of  the  people.  Let  our  Government  declare  war  on  any 
foreign  nation,  and  every  individual  becomes  involved  in  it,  and  in  the  miseries 
that  may  flow  from  it.  These  influences  reach  all  over  the  nation,  extending 
to  every  family,  and  to  every  individual.  Any  act  of  the  National  Legislature 
is  far-reaching  in  its  influence.  Can  you  think  that  the  omission  of  any  needed 
act  can  be  of  less  significance  than  the  doing  of  it?  The  omission  of  what 
should  be  is  as  far-reaching  as  the  doing  of  what  should  not  be  done.  It  must 
be  of  immense  significance  ;  it  cannot  be  otherwise.  Therefore,  the  import¬ 
ance  of  the  subject  calling  us  together  seems  to  me  to  be  evident  to  every 
mind. 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  m’iLYAINE. 


23 


There  is  an  evident  necessity  of  doing  something  to  reach  the  object  at  which 
we  aim.  Here  we  are,  a  great  Christian  nation.  That  it  is  so  may  be  seen 
from  the  fact  that  from  Christian  principle  we  have  our  laws  and  our  institu¬ 
tions  of  education,  and  all  our  hopes  of  future  prosperity.  [Applause.]  And 
yet  with  all  such  basing  of  the  nation  on  Christian  morality — so  long  as  the 
Constitution  stands  as  it  now  is — Christian  morality  is  not  recognized  distinctly. 
There  are  different  moralities  in  the  world,  and  theories  of  morals,  as  Turkish, 
Pagan,  and  others,  that  differ  from  the  Christian  system  of  morals.  There  is 
something  that  may  be  called  a  Mormon  system  or  theory  of  morals,  differing 
greatly  from  the  Christian  system  of  morals.  I  ask  :  on  what  authority  in 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  can  distinct  inculcation  of  Christian 
morality  be  enacted  ?  I  cannot  find  any  such  authority  in  the  Constitution  as 
it  now  is. 

In  this  country,  though  there  is  far  greater  Christian  light  here  than  any¬ 
where  else,  religion  and  politics  have  been  unlawfully  divorced,  and  this 
divorcement  is  favored  by  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  tendency 
seems  to  be,  all  the  time,  for  men  to  drift  farther  and  farther  away  from  re¬ 
ligious  influences  the  more  they  are  connected  with  politics.  The  roots  of 
morality  are  in  religion.  It  is  not  possible  that  there  can  be  any  deep-rooted 
morality  in  an  irreligious  people.  There  must  be  connection  and  communi¬ 
cation  between  religion  and  politics.  Politicians  separate  from  religious 
action  are  separate  from  moral  influences,' and  they  fall  inevitably  into  a 
state  of  mind  in  which  they  say  to  themselves,  “  As  members  of  the  family, 
as  men  of  business,  we  ought  to  make  some  profession  of  religion but  in 
political  life  there  is  no  need  of  religion,  and  so  they  banish  religion  from 
their  modes  pf  political  action !  Therefore  it  is  notorious  that  men  in  office 
are  guilty  of  breaches  of  morality  which  they  would  not  be  guilty  of  in  private 
life — men  that  bear  comparatively  good  reputations  in  private  life  are  un¬ 
principled  in  public  life. 

This  leads  me  to  seek  the  cause  why  the  Constitution  leaves  out  all  mention 
of  God?  I  do  not  think  that  the  framers  of  it  were  all  infidels,  or  hated 
morality.  But  because  the  people  came  from  countries  where  the  church  and 
the  state  had  been  united  in  such  a  manner  as  to  degrade  and  oppress  ;  and 
the  representatives  of  the  people  having  such  powerful  prejudices  guarded 
against  such  union  by  leaving  out  of  the  expression  of  the  national  life  all 
reference  to  the  church.  All  men  know  that  such  union  is  not  our  aim.  We 
want  no  union  of  church  and  state.  [Cheers.]  Now,  in  guarding  this  point, 
our  fathers  went  to  the  opposite  extreme.  I  cannot  characterize  it  in  any 
other  way.  In  avoiding  mention  of  the  church,  they  avoided  all  mention  of 
religion,  and  this  failing  has  exerted  a  corrupting  influence  on  our  political 
morality.  It  has  given  birth  to  the  common  remark,  “We  must  not  bring 
religion  into  politics.  The  only  way  to  keep  religion  pure  is  to  keep  it  sepa¬ 
rate  from  politics.”  But  it  does  not  seem  to  have  entered  into  the  mind  of 
men  that  this  is  a  two-edged  sword  which  cuts  both  ways.  When  we  have 
withdrawn  religion  from  politics  to  keep  religion  pure,  what  is  to  keep  politics 
pure  thus  separated  from  religion?  [Prolonged  applause.]  When  we  have 
taken  religion  out  of  our  political  life,  the  salt  is  taken  away,  and  it  is  left  to 
irretrievable  corruption.  [Applause.] 

Apart  altogether  from  the  church,  if  there  had  never  been  any  church  in  the 
world,  and  never  was  to  be  any,  the  nation  is  the  creature  of  God,  and  is  bound 


24  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

« 

to  acknowledge  His  moral  government.  [Applause.]  And  He  rewards  the 
nation  for  obedience,  and  punishes  it  for  disobedience.  And  when  in  our 
national  acts  we  fail  to  recognize  our  national  obligations  to  God,  it  seems  to 
me  that  we  sin  as  a  nation,  and  drag  down  ourselves  into  political  'demoraliza¬ 
tion. 

There  is  an  immense  difference  between  the  morality  of  the  people  and  the 
morality  of  our  politics.  ‘This  difference  is  lamentable  ;  and  it  cannot  con¬ 
tinue  long  in  the  direction  it  is  now  going.  The  whole  nation  is  affected  by 
such  public  morality.  The  reason  is,  there  is  no  government  in  the  world 
where  the  political  sphere  of  life  is  so  great  as  it  is  here.  Every  man  here  is, 
more  or  less,  a  politician.  A  greater  number  of  persons  are  deeply  interested 
in  politics  than  in  any  other  country  in  the  world.  Political  influences  are 
therefore  exerted  in  every  family,  in  every  home,  and  in  evtry  heart.  Now, 
if  our  political  life  becomes  demoralized— as  it  threatens  to  become— how  long 
will  the  common  life  of  the  people  continue  pure  ?  If  a  man  will  commit  per¬ 
jury  in  political  life,  how  long  will  it  be  before  he  will  swear  falsely  in  busi¬ 
ness  matters  ?  How  long  will  corruption  be  confined  to  the  political  sphere 
of  life  ?.  It  cannot  be  confined  there,  but  will  permeate  all  parts  of  the 
people’s  life,  and  more  rapidly  in  this  country  than  in  any  other  country  in 
the  world.  A  despot  wants  moral  men  to  be  his  officers,  however  selfish  he 
may  be  himself.  He  wishes  to  have  good  men  in  his  service.  But  in  this 
country,  where  all  is  different,-  if  false  ideas  of  political  morality  extend,  as 
they  seem  almost  destined  to  do;  if  the  maxim  be  generally  accepted,  “  All  is 
fair  in  politics ;  ”  if  you  send  such  men  for  legislators  as  have  been  generally 
sent,  and  they  act  as  they  have  generally  acted,  our  ruin’ is  sure  and  speedy. 

With  these  remarks  I  leave  the  matter  to  be  discussed  by  others  better 
qualified.  In  closing  let  me  say,  that"  to  my  mind  it  seems  the  most  prepos¬ 
terous  thing  for  a  great  nation  like  ours  to  attempt  to  carry  on  its  government 
under  a  Constitution  which  contains  no  reference  to  God  or  moral  law  and 
Christianity.  I  expect  that  soon  this  nation  will  rise,  as  one  man,  and  demand 
this  amendment,  because  they  cannot  live  any  longer  without  it.  [Great  ap¬ 
plause.] 


The  Rev.  Dr.  S.  H.  Tyng,  Sr.,  was  introduced  by  the  President, 
and  delivered  the  following  address : 

DR.  TYNG’S  ADDRESS. 

Mr.  President,  and  my  Christian  Friends— for  so  I  will  address  this 
large  assemblage : — We  have  been  called  to  consider  a  great  Christian  question. 
We  are  assembled  as  a  company  of  the  sincere  representatives  of  the  word  and 
authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  This  is  as  really  a  distinctively  Christian 
assembly,  as  if  it  were  gathered  especially  for  the  purpose  of  prayer. 

The  great  question  before  us  seems  to  me,  as  I  have  read  and  listened  to  its 
discussion,  to  have  but  one  side.  I  have  heard  nothing  on  the  otliei  but 
arbitrary  objections,  and  rude  and  reproachful  sneers.  We  may  be  considered 
in  this  relation  as  men  of  one  idea.  But  it  is  an  idea  of  unspeakable  grandeui 
and  of  vast  importance.  We  propose  that  the  constitution  of  a  Christian 
laud  and  government  shall  openly  and  distinctly  acknowledge  the  authority 


Address  of  dr.  tyng. 


25 


of  Him  who  is  its  proper  and  acknowledged  Ruler,  whom  in  all  the  acts  of 
authority  they  habitually  designate  as  “  Our  Lord.” 

For  the  propriety  and  duty  of  this  I  have  read  and  listened  to  the  most 
effective,  intelligent  and  unanswerable  arguments.  In  opposition  to  them,  so 
far  as  I  have  heard,  there  are  three  classes  of  objectors,  from  neither  of  which 
have  I  heard  one  reply  which  has  appeared  to  me  worthy  of  a  moment’s 
thought. 

The  first  acknowledges  the  propriety  of  our  demand  in  principle,  but  says  it 
is  unnecessary  because,  by  implication  at  least,  in  its  date  and  in  some  of  its 
appointments,  the  Constitution  already  acknowledges  the  divine  authority, 
and  the  special  authority  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ.  I  am  grateful  for  the 
concession  ;  but  I  reply  that  an  open,  distinct  profession  of  this  acknowledg¬ 
ment  is  so  much  the  more  important  that  the  character  and  authority  of  an  in¬ 
strument  which  is  thus  conceded  to  be  accidentally  or  intuitively  right,  in  an 
underlying  principle,  should  make  that  distinctive  and  most  important  prin¬ 
ciple  an  open  and  indisputable  avowal.  And  however  adequate  the  influence 
might  have  been  in  an  earlier  period  and  with  a  far  smaller  community, 
amidst  the  gathered  objections  and  hostilities  of  our  now  immensely  extended 
nation  and  our  excited  period,  it  is  of  infinite  consequence  that  the  nation  shall 
openly  and  candidly  declare  in  its  Constitution  that  divine  authority  which  it 
is  conceded  does  actually  underlie  its  whole  administration  of  power,  and  its 
avowed  aspect  and  purpose  as  a  community.  This  first  class  agree  with  us  in 
our  fundamental  desire,  but  separate  from  us  only  in  the  expediency  of  a  time, 
and  a  form  for  its  accomplishment.  We  can  hardly  regard  this  class  as  a  class 
of  opposers. 

The  second  class  concede  that  there  is  no  such  acknowledgment  of  divine 
authority  in  the  Constitution  as  we  desire,  and  defend  the  omission.  Their 
view  seems  to  be,  that  a  political  document  should  be  kept  clear  from  all  reli¬ 
gious  reference  or  expression.  They  are  not  unbelievers  in  Christianity. 
Perhaps  they  regret,  in  some  cases,  that  there  was  not  some  such  expression  as 
we  desire  incorporated  in  the  Constitution  at  its  outset.  But  they  are  now 
opposed  to  any  alteration  of  the  venerable  instrument  for  this  purpose.  W e 
have  simply  to  reply,  it  is  never  too  late  to  do  right.  However  old  an  error 
may  be  there  caunot  be  a  greater  mistake  than  to  perpetuate  it.  The  avowed 
principle  that  Christian  influence,  morality  and  truth  are  not  to  be  allowed  to 
affect  public  justice  or  law  can  never  be  maintained  but  by  absolute  enemies 
to  Christianity  in  itself.  And  these  objectors  we  cannot  allow  ourselves  to 
number  among  the  fearful  array  of  avowed  infidels  in  Christian  truth. 

But  the  third  class  is  composed  of  just  these  infidels.  They  meet  us  with 
their  own  only  weapons  of  sneers,  derision,  reproach  and  blasphemy.  We 
have  seen  and  read  much  of  them  of  late.  They  call  us  “  God  in  the  Consti¬ 
tution  party.”  I  am  free  to  accept  the  title.  I  am  just  that.  I  belong  to  the 
“God  in  the  church”  party,  to  the  “God  in  the  household  ”  party,  to  the 
“God  in  the  heart”  party.  The  divine  authority,  the  name  and  glory  of 
Jesus,  I  wish  to  have  everywhere  acknowledged  and  revered. 

This  is  a  class  of  objectors  to  whom  I  would  say,  “We  are  not  careful  to 
answer  you  concerning  this  matter.”  When  I  meet  with  low  personal  abuse, 
vulgar  derision  and  blasphemous  imprecations  upon  the  holy  name  whereby 
we  are  called,  I  shall  with  draw  from  all  association  with  such,  or  reference  to 
them.  We  do  not  ask  their  help.  We  do  not  fear  their  hostility.  We  shall 


26 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


not  shrink  from  the  performance  of  our  duty  for  their  coarse  reproaches.  We 
are  the  party  who  would  acknowledge  the  authority  of  God,  and  the  name  of 
Jesus,  at  all  times,  in  the  nation,  in  the  community,  in  the  family,  in  the  indi¬ 
vidual  life. 

I  would  say  to  you,  my  friends,  we  must  pursue  tliis  great  purpose  with  un¬ 
shrinking  fidelity.  Agitate  !  Agitate  !  Agitate  !  We  are  perfectly  sure  of 
an  ultimate  triumph.  We  are  on  the  side  which  must  conquer.  If  not  in  our 
generation,  yet  in  the  generations  which  will  come  after  us — whoever  may 
oppose. 

The  particular  formula  in  which  this  desired  amendment  to  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  shall  be  expressed,  with  most  effect  and  propriety,  I  am  free  to  say  we 
may  not  yet  have  attained.  It  needs  some  special  inspiration  of  wisdom,  per¬ 
haps,  to  frame  a  perfectly  successful  utterance.  God  will  give  that  to  us 
in  His  own  time. 

We  are  not  here  assembled  to  njake  this  amendment.  That  belongs  to  the 
people  themselves,  through  their  appointed  representatives.  But  we  are  ar¬ 
rayed  to  promote  it,  to  awaken  attention  to  its  importance,  to  arouse  public 
sentiment  in  favor  of  its  adoption.  And  for  this  we  are  to  go  on  in  our  work, 
indifferent  to  reproach,  careless  of  mere  hostile  objections. 

Therefore  I  say,  Agitate  !  Agitate  !  Agitate  the  demand  for  this  great 
principle  of  acknowledgment.  Generations  after  will  need  it  as  much  as  we  ; 
and  whatever  increase  or  advance  in  wisdom  we  may  gain  in  our  period  of 
labor  we  will  bequeath  to  those  who  come  after  us,  that  they  may  carry  for¬ 
ward  the  great  contest,  for  the  Saviour’s  glory,  till  the  end  be  completely 
attained.  If  you  and  I  are  to  lie  down  in  the  grave  before  this  great  work  is 
done,  let  us  leave  our  testimony  to  our  sons,  and  our  sons’  sons,  with  the 
charge  to  accomplish  in  their  day  this  great  glory  of  our  land.  Great  and 
lasting  principles  grow  slowly,  but  surely.  And  God,  who  gave  us  our  glori¬ 
ous  country,  and  prepared  and  guided  our  forefathers  for  its  prosperous 
establishment,  will  maintain  his  own  honor  and  government  in  it. 

I  have  no  doubt  of  the  glorious  government  of  God  over  all  the  earth  ;  nor 
of  the  future  unlimited  establishment  and  display  of  the  dominion  of  Jesus 
Christ  our  Lord,  over  the  whole  world  for  which  He  died  and  which  He  has 
redeemed  by  His  death.  And  I  have  no  doubt  either,  that  this,  my  beloved 
country,  will  stand  forth  high  and  honored  among  the ‘agencies  which  shall 
bring  on  the  last  reign  of  holiness  and  glory.  And  for  that  exalted  govern¬ 
ment,  and  for  all  that  conduces  to  its  maintenance  and  establishment  we  are 
here  engaged,  in  the  all-important  question  and  purpose,  which  have  brought 
us  here  this  day. 

Let  reproaches  come.  They  are  of  little  consequence.  Infidelity  is  but  a 
puddle,  the  result  of  a  temporary  shower.  Truth,  the  Truth  of  God,  the 
Truth  of  Jesus,  is  an  everlasting  spring,  flowing  from  the  love  and  wisdom  of 
God,  which  will  roll  onward  and  spread  itself  abroad,  until  its  waters  fertilize 
.  ?  teinity  to  come  shall  be  filled  with  the  glory  which 

has  been  gathered  froip  this  earth  restored  to  God,  and  sanctified  and  saved 
by  the  power  and  truth  of  that  Glorious  Saviour  whom  He  hath  crowned  Lord 
of  Lords  and  King  of  Kings. 


The  Rev.  Dr.  Edwards,  Chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Resolu- 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  MINER.  27 

tions,  reported  a  series  of  resolutions.  For  these,  as  adopted  by  the 
Convention  after  discussion,  see  page  41. 

Dr.  A.  A.  Miner,  President  of  Tuft’s  College,  Mass.,  was  then 
introduced,  and  spoke  for  about  fifty  minutes,  on  the  *“  Influ¬ 
ence  of  Silence  in  Regard  to  Fundamental  Law,”  substantially  as 
follows : 

ADDRESS  OF  DR.  MINER. 

If  the  men  and  women  of  this  country  were  asked,  what  of  all  the  facts  and 
principles  that  enter  into  our  national  life  are  most  important,  ninety-nine  in 
a  hundred  would  answer,  the  facts  and  principles  of  Christianity.  These,  they 
would  say,  were  operative  when  the  nation  had  birth,  and  have  ever  since  con¬ 
tinued  operative,  in  various  degrees  of  purity.  Thus  they  regard  Christianity 
as  essentially  our  fundamental  law.  At  the  same  time  they  are  aware  that 
what  we  call  our  fundamental  law,  the  Constitution  of  these  United  States,  is 
utterly  silent  in  regard  not  only  to  the  author  of  Christianity,  but  to  the  very 
being  of  a  God  ;  and  this  silence,  they  quite  generally  think,  it  would  be  impol¬ 
itic,  even  hazardous,  to  break.  They  rely  on  Christianity  to  conserve  the 
nation’s  interests,  and  promote  its  welfare,  but  think  it  must  be  done  quietly, 
not  overtly.  I  cannot  but  ask,  how  can  it  be  wise  to  do  covertly  what  it 
would  be  unwise,  even  hazardous,  to  do  openly? 

What  is  the  origin  and  what  the  tendency  of  this  silence  in  regard  to  our 
essential  law  ?  It  must  not  be  forgotten  that  the  early  colonies  were  deeply 
and  strongly  religious.  Some  of  them  had  even  identified  citizenship  and 
church-membership.  However  jealous  of  their  own  rights  of  conscience,  the}r 
had  learned  scarcely  the  rules  of  toleration  as  a  principle,  and  did  not  hesitate 
to  inflict  various  disabilities,  rising  sometimes  to  gravest  persecution,  upon 
those  who  could  not  see  with  their  eyes  and  hear  with  their  ears. 

From  such  causes  there  arose  an  exceeding  jealousy  of  civil  interference  in 
matters  of  religion.  Those  who  had  been  trained  under  persecution  at  home, 
strengthened  by  accessions  of  men  repelled  by  church  and  state  tyranny 
abroad,  constituted  a  host  justly  opposed  to  any  union  of  church  and  state 
under  the  new  polity.  Divisions  of  the  church  had  become  more  numerous, 
and  it  was  properly  felt  that  there  must  be  no  preference  given  to  one  church 
over  another  in  the  national  charter.  How  to  secure  the  equal  rights  of  all, 
otherwise  than  by  utter  silence  in  regard  to  Chistianity  itself,  they  did  not  dis¬ 
cover.  And  so  error  was  shielded  and  the  chasm  bridged. 

That  French  Atheism  and  English  Deism  had  exerted  their  baneful  influ¬ 
ence  on  American  thought,  there  can  be  no  doubt.  The  number  of  free¬ 
thinkers  in  the  country  was  absolutely  great,  though  it  was  relatively  small  ; 
and  an  undue  proportion  of  such  men  were  embraced  in  the  national  coun¬ 
cils.  What  covert  influence  their  personal  rejection  of  Christianity  had  in 
determining  the  method  of  securing  equal  rights,  it  is,  perhaps,  impossible 
to  say  ;  but  that  the  silence  determined  upon  did  not  mean  the  rejection  of 
Christianity,  but  did  mean  rather  the  perfect  toleration  of  the  various  sects, 
seems  quite  clear.  Had  it  been  understood  that  the  former  was  the  meaning, 
there  would  have  been  sucli  an  outcry  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  land  as  would  have  prevented  the  ratification  of  the  Constitution  by  the 
people. 


28 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


Noi  in  case  the  silence  of  the  Constitution  had  meant  a  rejection  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  whould  there  have  arisen  at  once  those  Christian  observances  and 
usages,  the  appointment  of  chaplains,  and  of  days  of  thanksgiving  and  the 
like,  which  have  continued  to  our  own  time. 

But  those  who  esteemed  Christianity  as  above  all  price,  and  who  yet  favored 
silehce  in  the  interests  of  toleration,  doubtless  reasoned  on  this  wise  •  “  The 

great  body  of  the  people  are  Christian.  What  the  people  are,  their  Govern- 
ment  will  substantially  be.  If  they  are  Christian,  Christianity  will  utter  itself 
m  the  State  Constitutions  ;  it  w  ill  modify  criminal  law  ;  it  will  temper  by  a 
higher  and  broader  justice  the  whole  body  of  the  laws.  We  need  not,  there- 
f,°rt»e  “Xl0U8  ®bout  any  recognition  of  Christianity  in  the  Constitution 
Thls  foreiy  IS  plausible  ;  but  is  it  sound  ?  If  the  Christianity  of  the 
people  naturally  embodies  itself  in  State  Constitutions,  would  it  not  just  as 
naturally,  m  the  absence  of  any  especial  stress  to  the  contrary,  embody  itself 
m  tIle  United  States  Constitution?  And  if  any  special  stress  prevented  the 
recognition  of  its  obligation  m  the  one  case,  why  would  not  a  similar  stress 
pi  event  it  m  the  other?  Besides,  would  not  silence  on  this  subject  in  the 
United  Slates  Constitution  tend  to  produce  a  like  silence  in  every  other 
department  of  the  Government  ?  If  its  mention  is  unimportant  here,  can  it 
be  otherwise  than  unimportant  anywhere?  Important,  or  unimportant,  the 
example  of  the  National  Congress  may  be  expected  to  be  potent  throughout 
every  subordinate  department  of  the  Government ;  just  as  our  great  cities,  by 

their  examples  in  things  evil,  as  well  as  good,  exert  a  controlling  influence 
over  the  towns  and  villages. 

Nearly  a  century  has  passed  since  this  omission  was  made.  It  is  not  too 
early  therefore,  to  look  for  some  of  its  results.  Three  generations  of  men 
educated  under  the  Constitution  can  hardly  fail  to  exhibit  some  of  its  ripening 

In  the  first  place,  then,  we  may  notice  among  the  results  of  this  silence,  an 
en  ire  perversion  of  its  meaning.  It  was  originally  intended  quietly  to  dispose 

1G  C1  Cl*  y  presented  in  the  great  diversity  of  religious  opinions  in  the 
country  ;  to  bridge  them  over,  and  give  every  sect  of  Christians  an  equal  posi- 
aon  before  the  law.  It  is  now  being  interpreted  as  a  rejection  of  them  all. 

n  tended  as  a  toleration  of  error,  it  has  come  to  be  transformed  into  a  rejection 
ot  the  truth.  •  J 

Nor  is  this  a  solitary  instance  in  our  history  of  a  like  transformation.  At 
.  e  ime  0  tlie  establishment  of  the  Constitution,  it  seemed  to  be  assumed  that 
slavery  as  an  institution  must  soon  cease  to  exist  upon  our  soil.  It  asked  not 
for  justification  ;  it  sought  no  enduring  tenure  of  life.  It  only  asked  not  to  be 
violently  thrust  out.  It  begged  that  its  foreign  means  of  support,  the  slave 
ia  e  might  not  be  suppressed  before  a  given  time.  It  anticipated  its  fate  at 

no  distant  period  from  that  glowing  fire  of  liberty  which  had  caused  the  revo¬ 
lution  itself. 

But  when  it  had  gotten  the  respite  it  sought,  it  began  to  cuddle  itself  in 
i  s  nest.  It  drew  to  itself  nutriment;  it  struck  out  right  and  left;  it  became 
an  interest  ;  it  demanded  the  same  consideration  given  to  other  interests;  it 
a  ked  of  its  rights,  and  finally  claimed  that  all  other  rights,  if  need  be,  must 
stand  aside.  So  long  as  there  was  a  single  foot  of  soil  overwhich  it  might  not 
rag  its  chain  and  from  which  it  might  not  eject  the  votaries  of  liberty,  its 
rights  were  infringed.  Hence,  when  the  nation  gave  it  bounds,  and  said,  “no 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  MINER. 


29 


more  slave  territory,”  it  unsheathed  the  sword  and  deluged  the  land  with 
blood.  From  being  tolerated  as  an  evil,  soon  to  disappear,  it  came  to  be  a 
great  interest  imperatively  demanding  its  rights. 

So  has  it  been  with  the  silence  of  our  national  character  in  regard  to  the 
authority  of  the  Christian  religion.  What  was  meant  as  a  toleration  of  dif¬ 
ferences  among  Christians  has  come  to  be  interpreted  as  a  rejection  of  Chris¬ 
tianity  itself.  The  older  of  you  will  remember  with  what  indignation  you 
heard  years  ago  that  a  diplomat  to  an  Eastern  Court,  urging  the  concluding  of 
a  treaty  with  the  United  States,  denied  that  we  are  a  Christian  nation — a 
denial  we  could  not  legally  controvert. 

Upon  the  vantage  ground  thus  gained,  the  enemies  of  Christianity  are  push¬ 
ing  their  warfare  against  it.  They  demand  that  our  civil  polity,  from  the 
highest  to  the  lowest  places  of  the  Government,  shall  be  brought  into  harmony 
with  the  Constitution — that  all  recognitions  of  Christianity,  whether  in  law  or 
usage,  shall  cease.  These  demands  are  stated  in  their  full  proportions,  and 
without  the  slightest  disguise,  by  one  of  the  boldest,  as  he  is  one  of  the  ablest, 
of  the  rejectors  of  Christ  and  his  authority.  They  are  summed  up  in  the 
following  nine  particulars: 

“1.  We  demand  that  churches  and  other  ecclesiastical  property  shall  no 
longer  be  exempted  from  just  taxation.” 

“3.  We  demand  that  the  employment  of  chaplains  in  Congress,  in  State 
Legislatures,  in  the  navy  and  militia,  and  in  prisons,  asylums,  and  all  other 
institutions  supported  by  public  money,  shall  be  discontinued.” 

On  the  hypothesis  that  the  silence  of  the  Constitution  is  a  rejection  of  Chris¬ 
tianity,  and  that  such  rejection  is  proper,  these  demands  are  logical  and  just. 
Church  property  renders  no  service  and  should  not  be  exempt  from  taxation. 
Chaplains  lend  no  aid  in  the  tempering  of  law  or  reforming  the  criminal,  and 
should  not  therefore  be  supported  by  tax  upon  the  people. 

“  3.  We  demand  that  all  public  appropriations  for  sectarian,  educational  and 
charitable  institutions  shall  cease.” 

By  “  sectarian,”  he  means  probably  any  form  of  Christian  institutions,  &c. 

“4.  We  demand  that  all  religious  services  now  sustained  by  the  Govern¬ 
ment  shall  be  abolished;”  [whether  they  be  free  or  not?  What  becomes  of 
liberty  of  conscience  on  the  part  of  officers  of  the  Government?]  “And 
especially  that  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  public  schools,  whether  ostensibly 
as  a  text-book  or  avowedly  as  a  book  of  religious  worship,  shall  be  prohibited.” 

The  spirit  of  this  demand  would  also  eliminate  all  mention  of  God  from 
our  text-books  of  science,  and  all  Christian  extracts  from  our  reading  books. 

“  5.  We  demand  that  the  appointment  by  the  President  of  the  United  States, 
or  by  the  Governors  of  the  various  States,  of  all  religious  festivals  and  fasts 
shall  wholly  cease.” 

“  (5.  We  demand  that  the  judicial  oath  in  the  courts  and  in  all  other  depart¬ 
ments  of  the  Government  shall  be  abolished,  and  that  simple  affirmation  under 
the  pains  and  penalties  of  perjury  shall  be  established  in  its  stead.” 

Affirmation  is  now  permitted.  Why  impose  it  upon  all  to  the  exclusion  of 
the  oath  ?  Is  this  an  enhancement  of  liberty  ? 

“7.  We  demand  that  all  laws,  directly  or  indirectly  enforcing  the  observ¬ 
ance  of  Sunday  as  the  Sabbath,  shall  be  repealed.” 


ou  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

No  more  paying  your  notes  on  Saturday  when  •they  fall  due  on  Sunday;  no 
more  closing  your  business  places  on  Sunday;  no  more  of  Sunday  stillness  in 
the  marts  of  trade;  no  more  exemption  of  Sunday  from  common-school  time 
by  the  authorities  of  public  instruction;  no  more  closing  of  theatres,  lecture 
halls,  art  galleries  and  public  libraries  on  Sunday  with  any  reference  to  its  uses 

as  a  day  of  Christian  worship;  and  all  this  to  secure  harmony  with  the  Con¬ 
stitution. 


8,  We  demand  that  all  laws  looking  to  the  enforcement  of  ‘Christian’ 
moiality  shall  be  abrogated,  and  that  all  laws  shall  be  conformed  to  the  require¬ 
ments  of  natural^  morality,”  [whatever  that  may  mean],  “equal  rights,  and 


When  these  demands  shall  have  been  secured,  we  shall  have  sunk  again  to 
the  morality  of  Pagan  times.  The  mercy  which  now  tempers  our  criminal 
laws  will  have  given  place  to  the  savageness  of  barbarian  lands.  Where  then 
shall  we  look  for  those  “  equal  rights,”  and  that  “  impartial  liberty  ”  which 
never  ripened  except  under  a  Christian  sun  ? 


nt“J:  Wedemjad  that  only  in  the  Constitutions  of  the  United  States  and 
of  the  seveial  States,  but  also  m  the  practical  administration  of  the  same  no 
privilege  or  advantage  shall  be  conceded  to  Christianity  or  any  other  special 
leligion;  that  our  entire  political  system  shall  be  founded  and  administered  on 
a  pui ely  secular  basis;  and  that,  whatever  changes  shall  prove  necessary  to  this 
end  shall  be  consistently,  unflinchingly,  and  promptly  made.”  ^ 


That  is,  in  short,  we  demand  that  this  Government  shall  be  “  unflinchingly 
and  promptly  ”  reduced  to  the  nihilism  of  Atheism.  Rather  a  big  job  And 
when  accomplished,  what  next  ?  Will  it  rest  there  ?  The  human  constitution 
makes  man  a  religious  being  just  as  it  makes  him  a  social  being.  Eliminate 
the  Christian  religion,  and  you  but  clear  the  field  for  something  else.  Heathen¬ 
ism  will  take  its  place,  and  all  the  superstitions  and  corruptions  of  heathenism 
will  abound. 

The  truth  is,  there  can  be  no  morality,  natural  or  special,  that  has  not  God  in 
it.  All  genuine  moral  laws  have  man  at  one  end  and  God  at  the  other.  We 
have  heard  so  much  about  development  these  later  years,  that  not  a  few  sup 
pose  that  God  has  been  developed  out  of  the  Universe,  and  morality  developed 
into  it;  while  the  most  conspicuous  of  all  our  modern  developments  is  the 
egotism  of  boastful  learning. 

These  being  the  modest  demands  of  Liberalism,  let  us  inquire  how  much  it 
has  really  accomplished. 

It  has,  as  we  have  seen,  demanded  the  elimination  of  all  mention  of  God  and 
Christianity  from  the  State  Constitutions  in  order  to  bring  them  into  harmony 
with  the  United  States  Constitution.  I  have  before  me  no  data  upon  this  subject  • 
but  from  the  nature  of  the  problem  I  judge  very  little  has  been  attained  The 
occasions  for  a  modification  of  State  Constitutions  are  few;  and  where  they 

aiise  the  appeal  to  a  central  board  is  inadequate,  usually,  to  the  end  at  which  it 
aims. 

In  some  other  particulars  its  success  has  been  more  flattering.  The  Bible 
has  been  ejected  from  the  public  schools  in  various  quarters  and  for  various 
os  Sensible  reasons,  among  which,  strange  to  say,  we  sometimes  find  the  very 
reverence  in  which  it  is  professedly  held-a  reason  akin  to  that  which  would 
exc  ude  religion  from  politics,  lest  it  skould  be  contaminated.  As  the  States 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  MINER. 


31 


move  forward  in  the  work  of  compulsory  education,  they  will  find  themselves 
confronted  with  the  grave  alternative  of  teaching  Christian  morality  as  a  part 
of  that  education,  or  of  turning  annually  upon  the  community  an  increasing 
number  of  keen-sighted  enemies  of  public  order. 

Another  work  in  which  the  enemies  of  Christianity  are  meeting  with  some 
success  is  the  opening  of  public  libraries  on  Sunday.  The  significance  of  this 
measure  is  appreciated  by  relatively  few.  The  reasons  urged  are  plausible, 
and  to  a  certain  extent  true;  but  they  will  commonly  apply  to  art  galleries, 
lecture  halls,  and  even  our  public  schools,  with  equal  force.  It  is  said, 
men  and  women  had  better  loiter  in  public  libraries  than  in  the  streets 
or  drinking  saloons.  The  same  may  be  said  of  our  children  and  the 
public  schools.  It  is  claimed  that  our  libraries  benefit  the  Sunday  because 
they  are  public  charities.  In  itself  considered,  were  that  the  whole 
problem,  men,  women  and  children  had  better  be  found  on  Sunday  in 
any  of  these  places — public  schools,  lecture  halls,  art  galleries,  or  even  theatres, 
than  in  the  grosser  haunts  of  vice.  But  that  is  no  part  of  the  problem.  To 
assume  that  they  must  be  in  the  one  class  of  places  or  the  other  is  wholly 
gratuitous.  The  closing  of  the  library  does  not  necessitate  the  opening  of  the 
dram  shop ;  and,  if  it  did,  it  would  still,  possibly,  be  better  that  some  persons 
should  visit  places  of  vice  under  their  own  and  the  public  condemnation,  than 
that  the  Sunday  of  quiet  worship  should  be  lost  to  the  whole  community.  It 
becomes  us  well  to  consider  whether  the  canting  plea  for  the  opening  of  our 
libraries  is  not  the  thin  end  of  the  wedge,  whose  full  proportions  are  seen  in 
the  extraordinary  demands  above  mentioned. 

A  philosopher,  who  detects  the  subtle  influences  which  temper  civil  life  and 
business  honor,  will  be  likely  to  conclude  that  a  far  deeper  mischief  than  the 
foregoing  has  already  been  wrought  by  the  assumption  that  our  government 
rests  on  a  purely  secular  basis,  and  ought  to  rest  there.  We  know  the  engross¬ 
ing  and  even  debasing  influence  of  secular  affairs  when  one  surrenders  himself 
to  them.  Who  of  you  has  not,  after  a  week  of  jading  toil,  come  to  your 
Sunday  worship  and  found  inspiration,  renovation,  and  a  nobler  ambition  for 
future  endeavor  ?  Better  still  has  been  the  experience  of  those  who  have 
borne  constantly  in  their  souls  a  quickening  sense  of  God’s  presence  and 
authority.  Things  secular  become  sacred  ;  and  work  becomes  divine.  Who 
can  say  to  what  extent  we  owe  our  recent  great  national  scandal  (Credit  Mo- 
bilier)  which  mantles  our  cheek  with  shame  and  disgraces  us  in  the  -eyes  of 
the  nations,  to  the  prevailing  secular  theories  of  government  ?  Who  can  say 
to  what  extent  such  influences  operate  to  corrupt  our  politicians  and  poison 
the  foundations  of  civil  life  ? 

Another  pernicious  result  of  the  silence  of  our  fundamental  law  in  regard  to 
Christianity  is  the  inability  of  the  Government  consistently  to  deal  with  that 
foulest  blot  upon  our  modern  civilization,  the  polygamy  of  Mormonism.  Our 
President  has  recently  indicated  his  purpose  to  take  this  matter  in  hand. 
Congress  and  the  country  appear  to  assent  thereto.  But  with  Christianity 
eliminated  from  every  department  of  the  Government,  what  warrant  would 
there  be  for  such  proceedings  ?  Do  not  Christianity  and  Mormonism  stand  on 
precisely  equal  grounds  before  our  National  Constitution  ?  Must  not  Mor¬ 
monism,  if  condemned  at  all,  be  condemned  outside  of  the  Constitution  ? 
Would  not  the  philosophy  we  are  opposing  paralyze  the  nation  in  the  direction 
of  its  noblest  endeavors?  Can  there  be  freedom  without  law;  and  would 


32 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


not  the  elimination  of  ‘Christianity,  which  is  in  reality  our  highest  and  our 
fundamental  law,  make  noblest  freedom  impossible  to  us  ? 

Is  this  the  road  our  fathers  intended  to  travel  ?  Is  it  the  road  we,  their  sons, 
are  willing  to  travel  ?  Has  this  nation  ever  undertaken  the  dubious  business  of 
eliminating  all  differences  of  opinion  ?  Does  this  noble  theory  of  toleration 
.  even  imply  the  opposite  philosophy — the  duty  of  suppressing,  in  all  its  laws 
and  in  the  expression  of  its  varied  functions,  whatever  is  in  conflict  with  any 
man’s  conscience  ?  Christianity  infringes  the  Atheist’s  conscience  no  more 
than  does  Atheism  the  Christian’s  conscience.  It  is  as  far  from  his  house  to 
ours  as  it  is  from  ours  to  his. 

Recognize  Christianity  as  our  fundamental  law,  and  we  change  this  vantage 
ground.  The  recognition  should,  of  course,'  be  in  fitting  terms  ;  not  in  terms 
that  can  be  defended  merely,  but  in  terms  that  in  their  clearness  and  freedom 
from  ambiguity  need  no  defense.  Such  an  amendment  would  work  no 
miracle':  By  influence,  not  magic,  would  it  bless  the  nation.  It  would  fur¬ 
nish  anchorage  for  the  national  faith  ;  it  would  legitimate  the  influence  of 
Christian  morality  in  modifying  criminal  law  ;  it  would  legitimate  the  spirit 
of  Christianity  in  all  law. 

But  it  is  said  persecution  will  follow.  How  ?  It  is  not  a  union  of  Church 
and  State.  It  is  a  recognition  of  no  church ,  but  of  that  which  lies  behind  all 
churches — Christianity  itself.  It  is  proposed  to  base  no  legislation  upon  it ; 
and  it  can,  therefore,  stretch  out  no  hand  to  oppress  any  man  or  tyrannize 
over  him.  Most  of  our  State  Constitutions  have  similar  provisions.  These  are 
much  nearer  to  the  people  than  the  United  States  Constitution,  and  yet  no 
tendencies  to  persecution  have  been  exhibited.  Educating  influence,  not 
restraining  power,  is  the  sole  agency  it  could  wield.  That  agency,  from  the 
high  places  of  the  nation,  it  would  wield  with  power  and  efficiency.  What¬ 
ever  others  may  do,  I  wish  to  record  my  voice  in  its  favor.  When  the  ser¬ 
ried  ranks  of  infidelity  shall  demand  the  suppression  of  the  name  of  God  and 
of  the  mention  of  Christianity,  I  wish  to  stand  among  those  who  will  say 
them  Nay— among  those  who  rejoice  in  the  purpose,  promise,  efficiency,  and 
glory  of  Christ’s  kingdom  among  men. 


The  Rev.  Dr.  Geo.  P.  Hays,  President  of  Washington  and  Jef¬ 
ferson  College,  Pa.,  being  introduced  by  the  President,  delivered 
the  following  address  on  the  “  Influence  and  Education  of  Public 
Sentiment :  ” 

ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  HAYS. 

It  is  true  of  other  forms  of  government,  but  preeminently  true  of  Repub¬ 
lics,  that  no  law  can  be  enforced  which  is  not  supported  by  the  sentiments  of 
the  people.  Temperance  legislation  is  good,  but  it  has  never  been  enforced 
against  the  wishes  of  the  mass.  Usury  laws  were  thought  to  be  good,  and  at 
one  time  were  enforced  with  severe  penalties,  but  so  soon  as  the  people  came 
to  look  on  the  use  of  money  as  a  commodity  like  wheat  or  iron,  interest  rose 
.Aid  fell  like  other  prices,  and  usury  laws  became  a  dead  letter  on  the  statute 
book. 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  HAYS. 


33 


Witli  this  in  mind,  many  are  puzzled  to  understand  why,  when  the  senti¬ 
ment  of  the  revolutionary  fathers  was  so  unquestionably  Christian,  the  fact 
does  not  show  itself  in  the  Constitution.  But  we  shall  not  be  surprised  at  this 
if  we  remember  that  they  had  been  accustomed  to  the  whole  system  of  com¬ 
mon  law  prevalent  in  England  ;  and  if  we  compare  our  constitutional  history 
and  the  tendencies  of  our  legal  practice  with  that  of  England,  we  shall  see 
that,  while  this  amendment  was  not  so  essential  then,  it  is  now  becoming 
increasingly  important  every  day. 

In  England  there  is  no  written  Constitution.  Immemorial  custom  there  is 
law,  and  is  so  enforced  by  the  courts.  Even  the  most  important  regulations 
of  their  administration  of  government  are  often  unwritten.  No  written  enact¬ 
ment  ever  declared,  that,  when  a  vote  of  want  of  confidence  in  the  ministry 
passed  the  House  of  Commons,  the  ministry  must  either  resign  or  appeal  to 
the  people  by  .dissolving  Parliament,  and  calling  a  new  election.  And  yet 
should  the  British  Queen  and  her  ministry  refuse  to  abide  by  that  regula¬ 
tion,  and  submit  to  the  voice  of  the  people,  so  declared,  a  revolution  would  be 
precipitated  as  certainly  as  if  the  President  here  should  undertake  to  per¬ 
petuate  his  power  after  his  term  had  expired,  and  another  had  been  elected  to 
fill  his  place.  A  capital  illustration  of  what  is  meant  by  common  law  is 
found  in  our  war  of  1812.  Every  one  knows  that  the  last  war  with  England 
sprang  up  almost  solely  upon  England’s  claim  to  the  right  to  take  American 
seamen  from  American  vessels  and  impress  them  into  the  English  service,  be¬ 
cause  they  had  formerly  been  Englishmen.  Over  that  question  these  two 
countries  fought  persistently  and  bravely.  By-and-bye  the  ambassadors  of 
the  two  nations  met  to  make  a  treaty  of  peace,  and  in  that  treaty  not  one 
word  is  said  of  the  impressment  of  seamen.  No  allusion  to. that  subject, 
not  even  the  most  distaqt,  can  be  detected.  And  yet  that  question  was 
surely  settled  by  the  war,  and  finally  settled.  England  has  never  tried  to 
enforce  impressment  since,  and,  so  far  as  I  know,  has  never  asserted  the 
claim,  and  if  to-day  she  was  to  try  to  enforce  it,  although  we  have  no  treaty 
stipulation  to  refer  to  in  justification  of  our  resistance,  it  would  be  resisted  to 
the  bitter  end.  It  is  common  law  between  the  nations. 

Now,  in  England  a  very  large  part  of  their  practice  is  common  law  practice, 
and  in  arguing  it,  all  past  historical  facts  are  of  the  utmost  importance  ;  and  in 
its  decisions  the  courts  will  have  high  regard  for  the  sentiments  of  the  people, 
the  public  welfare,  and  past  history.  So  in  the  beginning  of  the  history  of 
this  country,  English  common  law  was  common  law  here.  A  man  was,  I 
believe,  once  punished  for  gross  blasphemy  in  New  York  under  an  indictment 
at  common  law.  But  the  genius  of  our  institutions  has  steadily  drifted  us 
away  from  common  law  practice  to  statute  law.  We  began  by  having,  first, 
Articles  of  Confederation,  and  then  a  written  Constitution,  in  which  it  was 
distinctly  provided  that  the  powers  not  given  to  the  Federal  Government  are 
reserved  by  the  people ;  and  then,  to  still  further  magnify  statute  law  and 
diminish  common  law,  we  have  Congress  meeting  in  protracted  annual  ses¬ 
sions,  legislating  on  all  conceivable  subjects,  and  discussing  many  inconceivable 
ones,  and  the  State  Legislatures  racking  their  wits  to  find  subjects  whereon  to 
legislate.  Nothing  but  the  dexterity  of  the  criminal  population  can  invent  a 
subject  not  yet  definitely  mapped  out,  with  its  right  and  wrong  all  laid 
down  in  the  law  books.  Go  into  the  courts,  and  almost  always  in  civil  suits, 
and  always  in  criminal  suits,  the  prosecution  opens  his  case  by  citing  the  law 


34 


PROCEEDIN&S  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


under  which  the  suit  is  brought.  Aou  do  know  that  here  in. New  York  are 
villains  running  unwhipped  of  justice  because  their  crimes  are  not  defined, 
with  penalties  attached,  in  the  statute  book.  All  the  time  our  ignorant  villains 
in  the  rural  districts  are  swindled  out  of  large  sums  of  money,  sent  to  bogus 
firms  in  New  York  for  counterfeit  National  Bank  notes,  instead  of  which  they 
only  sawdust ;  and  when  they  come  on  here,  they  can  do  nothing  in  the 
New  York  courts,  because  the  New  York  Legislature  has  not  passed  an  act 
Prohibiting  lumber  mills  from  furnishing  sawdust  for  such  purposes.  (Laugh¬ 
ter.)  The  President  of  our  local  Association  was  not  long  since  on  a  jury, 
where  the  testimony  proved  that  a  farm  was  sold,  and  a  large  part  of  the 
purchase  money  paid.  Shortly  after  the  sale  the  seller  died,  and  his  wfidow 
married  again  before  the  deed  was  made  out,  when  her  second  husband  sug¬ 
gested  that  she  had  not,  in  full  legal  form,  given  her  consent  to  the  act  of  her 
first  husband  ;  and  that  jury,  reluctant  as  they  were,  by  the  explicit  charge  of 
the  court,  were  compelled  to  bring  in  a  verdict  by  which  that  purchaser  was 
required  to  pay  the  second  time  for  what  he  had  already  paid.  The  justice 
and  the  right  wxent  for  nothing  when  the  letter  of  the  law  stood  in  the  way. 
Just  so  now,  it  is  capable  of  the  most  positive  proof,  on  any  platform,  that 
Christianity  was  at  the  first,  and  ever  sitice  has  been,  an  essential  part  of  the 
political  life  of  this  nation  ;  and  if  common  law  was  the  governing  practice  of 
this  nation,  the  record  of  the  past  would  be  conclusive  for  the  future,  just  so 
long  as  the  churches  kept  up  the  religious  sentiments  of  the  citizens;  but  since 
more  and  more  we  are  drifting  away  from  common  to  statute  law,  what  will 
all  these  avail  in  the  presence  of  a  specific  enactment?  In  England  the  courts 
may  condemp  that  which  is  against  public  morality,  but  here  no  moral  evil 
can  be  a  civil  wrong  until  the  Legislatures  have  passed  upon  it. 

.  ^)liven  thus  by  the  very  nature  and  genius  of  our  American  political  institu¬ 
tions  away  from  common  law  to  specific  legislation,  we  are  compelled  to  have 
a  standard  fixed  and  settled,  to  which  all  can  appeal,  by  which  virtue  and  vice 
is  to  be  tested.  A  criminal  code  is  impossible  without  a  standard,  and  there 
never  was  a  more  impossible  fancy  than  laws,  courts  and  penalties  indifferent 
among  deities.  Jupiter  justified  wife  murder  and  robbery;  Moloch  required 
the  sacrifice  of  children  ;  Boodh  is  pleased. with  the  burning  of  widows;  Joe 
Smith’s  Mormon  god  inculcates  polygamy;  the  Mohammedans  get  from  the 
haiem  to  Heaven  by  the  battle-field,  as  the  shortest  route  ;  Compte,  while 
scouting  everything  Christian  in  constructing  his  positive  politics,  deified 
collective  humanity  ;  and  France,  in  her  baldest  atheism,  worshipped  a  strum¬ 
pet  as  the  Goddess  of  Liberty ;  while  Jehovah  would  have  us  do  justly,  love 
mercy  and  walk  humbly.  When  now  you  deal  with  crimes  and  civil  rights, 
you  must  decide  among  these.  Non-committalism  is  impossible. 

But  some  say  there  is  no  need  of  deciding,  for  the  voice  of  the  people  is  the 
aw  of  the  land.  It  that  is  true,  polygamy  is  right  in  Utah ;  and  a  vote  of  the 
people  and  the  Legislature  can  make  it  right  to  refuse  to  pay  debts.  Has  the 
civil  government  the  right  thus  to  legalize  fraud  and  cheating  ?  We  are  now 
in  a  transition  state  in  regard  to  the  standard  of  weights  and  measures.  It  is 
to  be  hoped  we  shall  soon  come  to  use  the  decimal  system  there,  as  we  now  do 
in  our  money.  Beyond  doubt  the  law-makers  can  legislate  the  old  cumbrous 
system  out  of  existence,  and  the  new  in.  Is  the  standard  of  crimes  of  the  same 
c  laracter,  so  that  it  is  only  a  matter  of  convenience  whether  crimes  are  voted 
up  or  down  ?  Can  the  marriage  tie  and  the  sanctity  of  the  household  be 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  HAYS. 


35 


thrust  aside  as  pounds,  shillings  and  pence  have  been  ?  We  have  come  very 
near  to  that  pass.  We  now  ballot  on  the  Sabbath  question,  and  on  the  tem¬ 
perance  question  :  why  may  we  not  with  equal  propriety  vote  on  marriage  ? 
Sirs,  ten  millions  of  a  majority  would  not  make  free-love  and  licentiousness 
right.  We  are  drifting  swift  and  sure  to  social  chaos,  whenever  the  popular 
sentiment  adopts  the  principle  that  the  right  or  wrong  of  moral  questions  may 
be  readjusted  at  the  ballot  box. 

But  just  here  comes  up  the  old  cry,  which,  appealing  to  the  sentiments  of 
prejudice  in  the  past,  says  this  is  uniting  church  and  state,  and  on  that  four- 
fifths  of  the  opposition  of  moral  people  to  this  movement  depends.  But  we 
have  shown  that  neutrality  is  impossible,  if  we  are  to  have  a  criminal  code  at 
all,  and  as  all  experience  proves  the  Bible  and  its  moral  law  the  best  ever  sug¬ 
gested  to  man,  we  have  no  rational  alternative  but  to  adopt  it  not  only  as  the 
higher  law,  but  the  highest  law  of  the  land.  Moreover,  it  is  just  as  easy  to  mark 
out  the  proper  boundaries  of  the  province  of  the  church,  and  the  province  of 
the  state,  with  the  Bible  as  without  it.  Indeed  I  do  not  believe  it  is  possible  to 
do  it  intelligently  without  the  Bible.  It  never  has  been  done  without  it.  No 
nation  ignorant  of  the  Bible  ever  yet  kept  the  two  asunder.  Whatever  we 
know  of  the  distinction  between  the  two  fields  we  gathered  from  inspiration. 
The  most  perfect  specimen  of  spiritual  despotism"  ever  devised  was  that  of 
Compte  in  his  hostility  to  the  Bible.  Church  and  state  both  grope  in  the  dark, 
as  they  search  for  their  metes  and  bounds,  when  the  light  from  heaven  is  gone. 
Whatever  theory  you  may  hold  as  to  the  field  of  the  church  and  the  state  you 
can  draw  your  dividing  line  with  the  Bible  better  than  without  it,  or  if  not,  it 
must  be  because  the  Bible  contradicts  your  theory,  and  you  had  better  aban¬ 
don  it.  My  theory  is  that  the  church  was  ordained  of  God  to  promote  man’s 
eternal  welfare,  and  touches  his  temporal,  only  as  it  atfects  that,  so  that  it  is 
all  the  same  to  the  church  whether  a  man  is  a  citizen  or  not — a  president  or 
a  *peasant — a  millionaire  or  a  beggar.  On  the  other  hand,  the  state  was  or-  ■ 
dained  of  God  to  promote  man’s  temporal  welfare,  and  touches  his  eternal,  only 
as  it  affects  that,  so  that  it  is  all  the  same  to  the  state  whether  a  man  is  a  Jew 
or  a  Gentile — goes  to  heaven  or  to  hell.  These  two  fields  are  perfectly  distinct, 
yet  bear  one  upon  another,  and  God  and  the  Bible  are  as  indispensable  to  the 
state  in  the  oaths,  crimes,  punishments,  and  social  virtue  which  affects  man’s 
temporal  prosperity,  as  they  are  to  the  worship,  sacraments,  instruction  and 
discipline  of  the  church  in  its  labor  for  man’s  eternal  salvation.  But  whether 
you  accept  that  theory  or  have  another  of  your  own,  you  can  work  out  your 
own  theory,  if  it  is  true,  better  with  the  Bible  than  without  it  ;  and  this  move¬ 
ment  contemplates  no  more  union  of  church  and  state  in  the  future  than  there 
has  been  in  the  past,  but,  simply,  that  as  we  can  no  longer  rely  on  unwritten 
common  law,  but  are  driven  to  decide  this  question,  that  the  Constitution  and 
laws  of  this  nation  shall  be  as  explicit  on  this  subject  as  they  are  on  others  ; 
we  are  not  forcing  an  issue,  but  the  drift  of  our  nation’s  history  is  forcing  the 
issue  on  the  nation. 

It  is  wonderful  how  rapidly  the  issue  is  thrusting  itself  forward.  Every 
ejectment  of  the  Bible  from  the  schools  pushes  it  into  prominence.  Every  anti- 
Sabbath  mass  meeting  in  Cincinnati  attracts  attention  to  it.  Every  riotous 
assault  on  the  Orangemen  in  New  York  quickens  the  public  sense  of  its 
urgency.  Every  categorical  demand  from  the  Index  and  the  Independent,  twin 
friends  in  a  bad  cause,  compels  those  who  would  postpone  it  to  see  the  impos- 


36 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


sibility  of  that ;  while  the  enormous  debts  plastered  over  New  York  by  ring 
contractors,  and  the  swindle  of  the  Credit  Mobilier  in  Washington,  compels 
every  honest  man  to  see  that  not  only  must  good  morals  be  the  sentiment  of 
the  people,  but  that  the  acknowledgment  of  God  and  obedience  to  the  moral 
law  must  be  explicitly  required  and  rigidly  enforced  on  those  in  high  places  ; 
and  give  us  but  the  same  momentum  of  popular  sentiment  in  this  direction 
that  rose  against  English  impressment— that  buried  slavery  beneath  a  consti¬ 
tutional  amendment— and  is  coming  slow,  perhaps,  but  sure,  on  the  temper¬ 
ance  question — and  for  all  the  future  forever  it  shall  be  settled  in  our 
Constitution  and  laws  that  JehcfVah  and  His  revelation  is  the  standard  of  this 
nation’s  virtue,  public  and  private. 

How,  then,  shall  such  a  public  sentiment  be  developed  y  What  means  of 
education  shall  be  adopted  ? 

Among  the  measures  of  prime  importance  is  a  careful  looking  after  the 
instruction  given  the  young  in  our  schools,  academies,  seminaries  and  colleges. 
Here  are  the  men  and  women  who  are  now  acquiring  that  facility  of  tongue  and 
felicity  of  expression  which  in  years  to  come  shall  sway  this  nation.  Here  are  the 
editors  that  from  their  sanctums  shall  send  oracular  utterances  on  rights  and 
wrongs,  to  be  received  almost  without  question  by  their  thousands  of  readers. 
Here  are  the  lawyers  that  at  the  bar  and  on  the  bench  shall  expound  justice  to 
this  nation.  Here  are  the  ministers  that  on  these  moral  questions  will  be  com¬ 
pelled,  willing  or  unwilling,  to  deal  with  politics,  and  unless  they  are  ready  like 
cowards  to  abandon  the  commandments  at  the  ominous  shake  of  the  partisan 
finger,  they  may  have  to  fight  a  political  battle  to  save  the  Sabbath.  Here,  too 
especially,  are  the  teachers,  that  in  the  public  and  private  schools,  higher  and 
lower,  will  shape  the  sentiments  of  the  people  while  yet  they  are  in  their  bud 
and  tender  growth.  The  students  of  this  land’s  colleges  can  mould  the 
nation’s  doctrines  in  the  next  score  of  years,  if  they  will.  What  is  needed  is 
that  these  students,  while  yet  students,  should  know  and  appreciate  the  depth 
to  which  the  beliefs  they  adopt  will  sink  into  the  substratum  .of  their  emo¬ 
tional  natures,  and  feel,  therefore,  the  importance  of  making  thorough  work 
in  their  search  for  the  right.  This  is  just  one  reason  why  the  reading  of  the 
Bible  in  our  common  schools  is  to  be  insisted  upon.  We  are  often  asked 
h°w  much  of  what  a  child  reads  it  remembers,  rhyming  it  over  without  any 
thought  or  attention ;  and  it  is  surely  very  doubtful  if  it  remembers  much,  so 
as  to  say,  “this  and  that  moral  truth  I  learned  at  school,  reading  the  Bible.” 
But  we  are  not  able  to  tell  where  and  when,  and  how,  we  learned- half  of  what 
we  believe.  The  time  of  its  absorption  is  not  in  our  mind  as  a  fact  of  con¬ 
sciousness,  for  the  reason  that  it  may  have  been  an  unconscious  inference, 
drawn  from  facts,  where  even  now  the  connection  between  the  fact  and  the 
inference  drawn  would  be  scarcely  perceptible  to  our  more  experienced  ob¬ 
servation.  So  the  children  now  in  our  common  schools  are  absorbing  the 
faiths  to  which  they  will  cling  in  after  life  with  a  tenacity  far  greater  than  that 
with  which  they  will  hold  what  they  have  seen  proved  in  older  years  ;  and 
it  is  no  mean  method  of  educating  their  sentiments  that  every  day  they  should 
take  up  this  one  Book  solely  because  of  its  character  and  authority,  and 
read  it  with  that  unexpressed  but  understood  feeling  that  for  some  special 
reason  this  is  the  standard  of  right  and  wrong.  If  they  never  remember  a 
sentence  of  its  teachings  at  the  time,  but  only  know  to  turn  to  it  as  the  test 
of  the  truth,  that  is  an  infinite  gain.  Added  to  this,  however,  there  is  that 


ADDRESS  OF  PRESIDENT  HAYS. 


37 


perpetual  absorption  of  -its  spirit  from  parable,  proverb,  prophecy,  miracle, 
sermon  and  history,  which  imprint  indelibly  on  the  mind  and  heart  the  beauty 
and  safety  of  doing  right,  and  the  peril  of  doing  wrong.  Continue  now  the 
process  through  all  the  days  of  the  months  of  the  four  or  six  school  years  of 
life,  and  those  years  of  child-life,  and  it  will  be  wholly  contrary  to  all  other 
human  experience  of  early  impressions  if  the  whole  subsequent  history  is  not 
mightily  moulded  by  the  education  of  conscience  received  therefrom.  As 
the  growing  tree  draws  its  substance  not  merely  from  the  soil  through 
which  its  roots  run,  seeking  nourishment,  but  drawls  scarcely  less  from  the 
atmosphere  with  which  its  leaves  are  surrounded,  and  the  breezes  that  blow 
past  it,  so  the  young  people  of  modern  society  learn  not  merely  what  they 
are  sent  to  school  to  study,  but  are  catching  ideas  and  bents  of  mind  from  all 
their  eyes  see  and  ears  hear  by  the  way.  Around  their  minds,  too,  there  is  an 
atmosphere  that  may  be  far  more  than  one-fourth  the  soul-quickening  oxygen 
of  vigorous  thought  redolent  with  the  aroma  of  Heaven,  or  hot  with  the  blas¬ 
phemous  breath  of  hell.  If  this  land  is  to  be  saved  it  must  be  largely  done  by 
controlling  the  influences  that  educate  the  sentiments  of  the  young.  Those  in 
the  anti-Sabbath  movement  have  rightly  begun  their  work  by  attempting  the 
expulsion  of  the  Bible  from  the  schools,  and  as  that  is  needful  for  them,  so  the 
preservation  of  that  school  Bible  and  such  like  influences  is  essential  to  the 
highest  moral  welfare  of  the  nation. 

But  these  judicious  methods  will  not  alone  answer  for  the  maintenance  of 
right  sentiments.  Oftentimes  the  right .  bents  that  are  received  when  young 
are  lost  as  the  individuals  on  entering  society  lose  their  individuality. 
Personal  opinion  is  often  over-slaughed  and  obliterated  by  the  resistance  or 
pressure  of  party  power.  In  this  land  fashion  controls  the  women,  and 
political  w’hips  the  men,  and  individual  conscience  and  responsibility  is  lost 
in  the  mass.  There  are  far  too  few  men  and  worsen  who  do  their  own  think¬ 
ing.  The  majority  dress  as  their  circle  dresses ;  sing  the  songs  their  set  sings  ; 
vote  the  ticket  their  party'nominates,  and  swear  by  the  editorials  of  the  news¬ 
paper  that  prints  the  flag  of  their  fathers  on  its  title-page.  Under  such  cir¬ 
cumstances  it  is  easy  to  divide  and  sub-divide  sin  until  each  separate  portion 
becomes  so  small  that  it  is  pushed  aside  as  too  insignificant  to  be  much 
thought  of.  As  a  result,  women  have  so  much  tortured  and  distorted  their 
bodies  and  the  laws  of  health,  that  it  is  seriously  discussed  whether  we  have  a 
well  woman  in  the  land  ;  and  men  have  so  degraded  public  office  that  it  is 
denied  that  an  honest  man  can  be  a  politician  ;  and  every  man  that  scratches 
his  ticket  is  denounced  as  a  renegade,  and  expelled  from  all  parties.  In  the 
same  way  workingmen’s  associations  prohibit  tradesmen  from  working  except 
at  such  prices  as  they  may  fix  ;  and  business  men  bind  each  other  to  sell  at 
the  same  price,  and  ostracize  the  man  that  breaks  the  market.  That  social 
demoralization  should  result  is  as  certain  as  any  law  of  social  science.  Cor¬ 
ruptions  never  come  alone,  just  as  no  man  ever  falls  suddenly  into  the  com¬ 
mission  of  some  enormous  crime.  Step  by  step  the  individual  familiarizes  his 
thoughts  with  crime,  blunts  his  conscience  and  blinds  his  vision,  until  the 
first  the  public  know  a  trusted  citizen  is  revealed  a  corrupt  scoundrel.  So, 
one  \>y  one,  corruptions  come  in,  and  we  flatter  ourselves  that  they  are  limited 
to  a  single  sphere  until  some  one  inquires,  and  the  difficulty  is  to  find  a  clean 
spot. 

The  remedy  is  well  begun  when  individual  responsibility  can  be  made  the 


38 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


watchword  of  the  nation,  and  independent  action  tlie  practice  of  the  people. 
Vice  is  already  checked  when  men  can  be  made  to  look  down  into  their  own 
eyes  and  recognize  the  guilt  therein.  Will  it  be  said  that  it  is  but  little  that  a 
few  can  do  in  a  task  so  extensive  as  this  ?  It  needs  but  a  determined  few  to 
take  the  lead.  A  hundred  resolute  men  in  either  party  in  any  .county  in  the 
land  can  control  their  party,  if  they  will  scorn  the  party  lash,  and  laugh  in  the 
face  of  the  whipper.  Vice  is  essentially,  thoroughly,  universally  cowardly. 
There  is  not  a  brave  man  in  your  penitentiary.  So  in  society,  morality  is 
fai  too  sensitive  to  ridicule,  but  it  is  not  half  so  sensitive  as  crime.  He 
who  thinks  out  his  own  right  way  and  pursues  it  to  the  end,  serves  to 
stiffen  the  resolution  of  every  half-minded  man  who  is  undecided  in  action. 

AVlien  they  say  to  us,  “  What  good  will  this  religious  amendment  do  without 
the  popular  sentiment  to  back  it  ?”  I  answer  I  care  nothing  for  the  amendment 
if  it  was  to  be  slipped  quietly  in  as  a  matter  of  no  importance.  But  this 
..  struggle  for  that  amendment  is  the  very  best  possible  method  of  preserving 
the  religious  sentiment  of  the  past  and  strengthening  it  for  the  future.  Give  us 
the  right  public  sentiment  and  that  amendment  will  go  in  with  a  whirl,  and  that 
sentiment  is  indispensable  to  the  perpetuity  of  the  nation.  The  amendment,  with¬ 
out  the  popular  sentiment  corresponding,  would  be  but  a  false  profession  of 
religion.  The  sentiment  without  the  amendment  would  be  the  skulking 
Christian  ashamed  of,  and  denying  his  Master;  while- the  sentiment  and  the 
amendment  is  the  nation  rising  up  into  a  higher  Christian  life,  and  shining 
in  the  brightness  of  the  King  of  the  kingdoms  of  men. 


The  Convention  then,  at  a  late  hour,  adjourned  to  meet  on  the 
following  morning  at  nine  o’clock. 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THURSDAY,  FEB.  27. 

MORNING  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  nine  o’clock,  and,  in  the  absence 
of  the  President,  was  called  to  order  by  the  First  Vice-President, 
Jno.  Alexander,  Esq.  At  the  invitation  of  the  Chairman,  Dr.  J. 
Edwards  led  the  Convention  in  prayer. 

The  President  soon  appeared  and  took  the  chair. 

Many  letters  and  other  communications  were  sent  to  the  Conven¬ 
tion.  Several  remonstrances  against  the  object  of  the  Convention 
weie  refened  to  the  Executive  Committee.  The  number  of  friendly 
communications  was  too  large  to  permit  notice  of  them  all.  The 
following  are  selected  as  of  special  interest : 


From  the  Hon.  M.  B.  Hagans,  Judge  of  the  Superior  Court  of  Cincinnati,  and 

President  of  the  last  National  Convention. 

Cincinnati,  Feb.  18,  1873. 

(,R®V;D-  McAllister,  New  York.—  My  Dear  Sir:- 1  received  the  call  for 
the  National  Convention  for  securing  tlie  proposed  Religious  Amendment  to 


LETTERS  TO  THE  CONVENTION. 


39 


the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  The  boldness  of  the  enemies  of  this 
movement  is,  I*  am  quite  sure,  arousing  the  careful  attention  of  thoughtful  and 
candid  men  all  over  the  country.  I  am  satisfied  that  our  objects  are  mis¬ 
understood  by  a  large  body  of  both  clergy  and  laity,  and  others  are  indifferent 
because  they  do  not  see  the  imminent  danger  we  are  fin,  with  respect  to  the 
vital  and  fundamental  principles  that  underlie  the  Government.  I  am  glad 
to  see  this  call  ;  and  to  feel  assured  that  the  agitation  of  the  question  must 
result  in  success 

While  I  am  sorry  I  cannot  be  present,  I  feel  a  deeper  and  more  abiding 
interest  in  the  movement.  We  need  no  more  cogent  arguments  than  those 
presented  by  the  so-called  “Liberals.”  But  God  will  restrain  the  wrath  of 
His  enemies. 

I  wish  the  Convention  all  success,  and  pray  the  Divine  Blessing  on  its 
sessions.  Very  truly  yours, 

M.  B.  Hagans. 

From  the  Rev.  Charles  Hodge,  JD.  D. 

Princeton,  Dec.  24,  1872. 

Rev.  D.  McAllister: — I  heartily  approve  of  the  object  of  the  proposed 
meeting ;  but  would  greatly  prefer  that  it  was  a  call  to  secure  the  national 
acknowledgment  of  Christ  as  Him  into  whose  hands  all  power  in  heaven  and 
earth  lias  been  committed.* 

Charles  Hodge. 


From  Prof.  Tayler  Lewis ,  LL.  D. 

Union  College,  Schenectady,  Jan.  20,  1873. 

My  Dear  Friend: — I  have  delayed  answering  you,  partly  from  my  poor 
health  and  incessant  occupation,  and  partly  from  indecision.  This  has  arisen 
from  a  desire  to  comply  with  your  request,  if  I  could.  I  am,  however,  con¬ 
vinced  that  I  cannot  prudently  give  you  an  affirmative  answer.  *  * 

*  The  great  work  in  which  you  are  engaged  has  my  whole 

heart,  and  it  gives  me  real  regret  to  decline  any  part  you  may  think  fit  to 
assign  to  me.  Yours  truly, 

Tayler  Lewis. 


From  Prof.  0.  N.  Stoddard ,  LL.  D. 

Wqoster,  O.,  Feb.  24,  1873. 

Rev.  T.  P.  Stevenson. — Hear  Friend : — I  regret  very  much  that  I  cannot 
attend  the  Convention  in  New  York.  I  could  not,  consistently  with  my  duties 
to  the  University,  be  absent  during  the  time  necessary  for  the  trip  and 
attendance  on  the  Convention. 

I  have  never  faltered  for  a  moment  in  my  interest  for  this  cause.  It  is  not 
specially  for  Christianity  that  I  have  rendered  what  little  aid  I  could.  Chris¬ 
tianity  can  live  without  the  amendment  ;  the  nation  cannot.  Patriotism, 
were  there  nothing  higher,  would  require  that  our  Government  should  be  put 
officially  in  its  true  relation  to  God.  The  nation  does  not  treat  God  with  the 
respect  which  one  gentleman  would  observe  towards  another ,  so  long  as  it  refuses  to 
recognize  Him  in  that  Constitution  which ,  in  form,  sets  forth  the  principles  on 
which  the  nation's  character  is  based ,  and  by  which  it  must  be  judged  in  the  court, 
of  Heaven. 

Wo  are  seeking  the  highest  interests  of  the  men  who  oppose.  I  trust  your 
deliberations  will  be  guided  with  the  wisdom  and  prudence* which  the  Spirit 
bestows.  With  kind  regards, 

Y ours  truly, 

O.  N.  Stoddard. 


*  Dr.  Hodge’s  attention  was  subsequently  called  to  the  fact  that  the  National  Association 
labors  to  secure  such  an  amendment  as  will  suitably  recognize  Christ  as  the  Ruler  of  nations, 
when  he  remarked,  “  I  had  overlooked  that.  That  is  satisfactory.” 


40 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


From  the  Students  of  Dane  Law  School ,  Harvard  University. 

Cambridge,  Mass.,  Feb.  22d,  1873. 

D.  McAllister,  Gen.  Sec. — Dear  Sir: — We  enclose  minutes  of  the  action 
taken  by  the  “  Assembly  of  Harvard  Law  School”  in  regard  to  the  call  for  a 
National  Convention  to  secure  a  religous  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States. 

Our  duties  at  the  University  prevent  our  attendance  in  person  at  the  Con¬ 
vention  called  to  meet  in  New  York  on  Wednesday,  the  26th  inst. 

With  heartfelt  sympathy  for  the  success  of  this  movement,  we  remain,  very 
truly, 

F.  W.  Edgar,  Easton ,  Penn. 

Jas.  C.  Bergen,  Brooklyn ,  New  York. 

Jas.  R.  Riggins,  Kansas  City ,  Mo. 

Cambridge,  Feb.  22d,  1873. 

At  a  regular  meeting  of  the  “Assembly  of  Dane  Law  School  ”  of  Harvard  Uni¬ 
versity,  held  Friday  evening,  21st  February,  1873,  it  was  voted ,  That  a  committee 
of  three  be  appointed  to  serve  as  delegates  to  represent  this  assembly  in  New 
York,  on  next  Wednesday,  for  the  purpose  of  considering  a  religious  amend¬ 
ment  to  the  Constitution.  Voted ,  That  Messrs.  Edgar,  Bergen  and  Riggins  be 
appointed  such  a  committee. 

Lewis  C.  Ledyard,  Clerk. 

D.  D.  Burnes,  Speaker. 

A  letter  of  peculiar  interest,  expressive  of  the  transatlantic  interest 
and  sympathy  referred  to  in  the  Report  of  the  Secretary,  is  the  fol¬ 
lowing  : 

From  the  Rev.  Dr.  James  Beyg,  Edinburgh. 

50  George  Square,  Edinburgh,  Feb.  3, 1873. 

My  Dear  Sir  : — Perhaps  you  will  allow  a  minister  of  the  Free  Church  of 
Scotland  to  express  his  great  satisfaction  in  connection  with  your  noble  effort 
to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  I  can  imagine  no  higher 
manifestation  of  patriotism,  and  I  earnestly  trust  and  pray  that  your  efforts 
may  be  crowned  with  complete  success.  I  read  with  much  interest  and  satis¬ 
faction  the  Christian  Statesmen,  which  some  kind  friend  is  good  enough  to 
send,  and,  if  it  were  possible,  I  should  have  the  greatest  satisfaction  in  attend¬ 
ing  your  meeting  on  the  26th.  I  hope  to  have  an  opportunity  of  reading  an 
account  of  its  proceedings,  and  of  giving  some  information  to  many  in  Scot¬ 
land,  who  are  beginning  to  look  on  with  interest.  We  have  here,  in  several 
forms,  a  struggle  going  on  for  substantially  the  same  principles  for  which  you 
are  contending  ;  principles  which  must  ultimately  be  crowned  with  triumph¬ 
ant  success.  Wishing  you  all  prosperity  and  blessing  in  your  noble  work,  I 
am,  my  dear  sir,  yours,  very  faithfully, 

James  Begg.v 

To  the  General  Secretary ,  etc. 


The  Resolutions  reported  at  last  evening’s  session  were  taken  up 
and.  discussed  seriatim  for  adoption.  After  considerable  animated 
discussion,  and  some  slight  amendments,  the  Resolutions  were 
adopted.*  Tl^ey  are  as  follows : 


*  It  was  intended  to  give  in  full  this  discussion,  in  which  Messrs.  Edwards,  Sloane,  J.  C. 
K.  Milligan,  Collins,  Wardell,  Crozier,  Mrs.  J.  G.  Swisshelm,  and  others,  took  part,  as  re¬ 
ported  by  the  Rev.  W.  H.  Tiffany,  the  stenographer  of  the  Convention.  But  the  limits 
within  which  it  has  been  judged  best  to  confine  this  volume  will  not  permit  the  carrying  out  of 
the  original  intention.  Prepared  addresses  and  reports  occupy  much  space,  and  in  their  full¬ 
ness  render  unnecessary  anything  more  than  a  running  account  of  other  matters. 


41 


RESOLUTIONS - GENERAL  SECRETARY’S  REPORT. 

RESOLUTIONS. 

Resolved ,  1.  That  this  Ninth  General  Convention  of  the  National  Associa¬ 
tion  for  the  Religious  Amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
re-affirms  its  deep  conviction  of  the  greatness  and  the  necessity  of  the  work  in 
which  it  is  engaged. 

Resolved,  2.  That  the  ' principles  which  underlie  this  movement  commend 
tltemselves  to  the  common  sense  and  the  conscience  of  men  as  true,  as  practi¬ 
cal,  and  as  of  great  importance. 

Resolved ,  3.  That,  in  the  judgment  of  this  Convention,  a  nation  and  an  ad¬ 
ministration  of  government  can  no  more  exist  without  moral  character, 
moral  influence  and  religion,  than  without  a  language,  and  that  any  attempt 
to  do  so  is  not  only  absurd  but  dangerous. 

Resolved ,  4.  That  it  is  the  clear. right  and  duty  of  a  Christian  people  to  make 
in  their  national  Constitution  solemn  acknowledgment  of  God  as  the  author 
of  government,  and  to  make  unmistakable  mention  of  their  preference  of 
Christianity  as  their  religion,  both  that  God  may  thus  be  duly  honored,  and 
that  legal  presumptions  may  be  created  in  favor  of  Christian  morality,  Chris¬ 
tian  usages,  and  Christian  institutions. 

Resolved,  5.  That  such  acknowledgment  of  God  and  of  Revelation  is  not 
designed,  and  does  not  tend  in  any  wise,  to  oppress  any  individual  conscience, 
or  to  effect  any  union  of  Church  and  State,  nor  can  it  ever  be  pleaded,  used,  or 
even  perverted,  to  such  injurious  ends. 

Resolved,  6.  That  this  Convention  does  not  regard  as  at  all  essential  the  pre¬ 
cise  form  of  petition  sent  to  Congress  in  the  interests  of  this  Reform,  provided 
the  main  issue  be  fairly  included,  viz.,  that  it  is  impossible  for  a  State  to  be 
neutral  in  religion  and  morals  ;  and  that  the  Christian  religion  is  an  essential 
element  in  American  civilization,  as  shown  in  the  whole  history  of  this 
country. 

Resolved,  7.  That  the  signs  of  the  times,  the  rapid  deterioration  of  public 
morals,  and  the  bold  demands  of  organized  political  infidelity,  show  conclu¬ 
sively  and  impressively,  that  the  alternative  now  presented  to  the  American 
people  is  Atheism  or  Christianity,  and  that  failure  to  adopt  this  proposed 
amendment  involves  ultimately  general  immorality  and  anarchy. 

Resolved,  8.  That,  thanking  God  and  taking  courage  upon  a  review  of  the 
past,  this  Convention  declares  the  time  to  be  fully  come  for  more  extended 
agencies  than  have  heretofore  been  employed,  and  that  especially  it  is  impor¬ 
tant  to  secure  systematic  and  liberal  contribution  of  funds  for  this  purpose. 


The  General  Secretary  of  the  National  Association  next  presented 
his  report,  which  was  addpted  and  ordered  to  be  published  with 
the  proceedings  of  the  Convention.  It  is  as  follows  :* 

GENERAL  SECRETARY’S  REPORT. 

The  progress  of  the  movement  for  the  Religious  Amendment  of  the  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  United  States,  during  the  past  year,  has  far  exceeded  the  expecta¬ 
tions  of  its  most  sanguine  friends. 

The  Convention  held  last  year  in  Cincinnati  called  public  attention  to  the 
movement  more  fully  and  pointedly  than  ever  before,  and  created  a  wide 
demand  for  information.  For  the  rapidly-increasing  friends  of  the  cause  a 
frequent  medium  of  communication  was  required,  and  the  reports  of  meetings 
were  constantly  demanding  a  hearing. 

To  meet  these  and  other  similar  demands  a  weekly  paper  became  indispen¬ 
sably  necessary.  Accordingly,  considerable  time  was  spent  .soon  after  the 
Cincinnati  Convention  in  securing  the  formation  of  an  association  for  the 
publication  of  a  weekly  journal.  The  effort  met  with  such  success  that,  on 


42 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


the  first  of  last  September,  the  Christian  Statesman,  the  organ  of  this  move¬ 
ment,  was  issued  as  a  weekly,  a  neat  eight-page  journal,  in  quarto  form,  and 
on  a  good  financial  basis.  The  experience  of  the  past  six  months  abundantly 
proves  the  stability  of  this  enterprise,  and  its  invaluable  aid  in  the  prosecution 
of  our  work. 

The  need  was  also  felt  for  other  documents,  presenting  fuller  treatments 
ceitain  aspects  of  the  question  than  could  find  place  in  a  single  number  of  the 
papei,  and  in  shape  for  preservation.  To  supply  this  want  the  proceedings  of 
the  last  Convention  were  published  in  a  pamphlet  of  about  ninety  pages,  con¬ 
taining  an  account  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  movement,  and  the  ad¬ 
dresses  of  Judge  Hagans,  Dr.  A.  D.  Mayo,  Profs!  Tayler  Lewis,  Stoddard  and 
Sloane,  and  others.  This  valuable  pamphlet  has  been  circulated  widely  over 
°ur  own  country,  going  into  the  hands  of  thoughtful,  leading  men,  and  not  a 
few  copies  have  been  applied  for  from  beyond  the  Atlantic.  A  sixteen-page 
tract  on  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  the  third  of  the  series  of  Christian 
Statesman  tracts,  has  also  been  published,  and  several  thousands  of  copies 
distributed,  particularly  through  the  State  of  New  York.  Many  thousands  of 
other  and  familiar  documents  have  also  been  distributed. 

It  is  impossible  to  give  an  accurate  statement  of  the  number  of  meetings 
held  in  the  interest  of  this  cause  during  the  past  year.  Information  has  been 
received  of  several  hundreds  of  public  meetings  at  which  earnest  addresses 
have  been  delivered.  Judges,  lawyers,  professors,  and  ministers  have  been 
among  the  speakers.  This  stirring  gathering  of  several  hundreds  of  delegates 
fiom  nineteen  States  is  itself  proof  of  the  large  number  of  meetings  held. 
Many  letters  have  been  received,  expressing  sympathy,  and  conveying  to  this 
Convention  resolutions  passed  at  meetings  from  which  no  delegates  have  come. 

Though  there  have  been  several  times  as  many  public  meetings  as  ever  be¬ 
fore,  for  the  same  period,  during  the  past  year,  little  has  been  done  in  organizing 
local  auxiliary  societies.  From  fifteen  to  twenty  of  these  have  been  formed, 
within  the  past  twelve  months,  in  the  following  States,  viz. :  Massachusetts, 
New  York,  Pennsylvania,  Ohio,  Indiana,  Iowa,  and  Kansas.  One  of  these 
societies,  formed  in  St.  Lawrence  County,  N.  Y.,  has  already,  in  a  few  months, 
enrolled  three  hundred  and  seventy-five  members. 

Ihe  effects  of  the  year’s  work  are  most  distinctly  marked.  Among  them  I 
would  call  attention  to  the  following  : 

The  whole  subject  of  the  relation  of  civil  government  to  Christianity  is  now 
leceiving  wide  and  careful  attention.  It  is  being  discussed  not  only  in  the 
newspapers,  but  in  ministers’  meetings,  in  colleges,  lyceums,  and  in  an  increas¬ 
ing  number  of  pamphlets  and  books.  The  Western  Tract  and  Book  Society 
of  Cincinnati  have  recently  offered  an  award  of  $100  for  the  best  discussion  of  • 
the  relation  of  the  United  States  Government  to  Christianity,  and  the  duty  of 
expressing  that  relation  in  the  fundamental  law.  The  same  subject  is  to  be 

carefully  discussed  at  the  meeting  of  the  Evangelical  Alliance  in  this  city 
next  Fall.  J 

Again,  the  issue  has  become  more  clearly  defined.  The  aggressive  action  of 
the  enemies  of  the  Christian  institutions  of  the  nation  is  dissipating  the  fogs 
of  misapprehension.  Thousands  who  have  heretofore  questioned  the  expe¬ 
diency  of  the  ‘Religious  Amendment  movement  have  been  led  to  revise  their 
opinion. 

Accordingly,  from  all  quarters,  during  the  work  of  preparation  for  this 


43 


V 


GENERAL  SECRETARY^  REPORT. 

.Convention,  tidings  kept  pouring  in  of  earnest  and  active  friends  coming  to 
the  front.  The  names  attached  to  the  call  for  the  Convention,  representing  as 
they  do  all  portions  of  our  land, — from  Maine  to  California,  and  from  the 
Lakes  to  the  Gulf, — indicate  the  marvelous  growth  of  this  movement  during 
the  'past  twelve  months.  As  an  able  Methodist  minister  said  at  a  meeting  in 
one  of  the  principal  cities  of  New  Jersey,  “It  needs  only  to  be  fairly  pre¬ 
sented  before  the  Christian  people  of  the  country,  and  it  will  go  like  an 
avalanche  !  ”  It  is  safe  to  say  that  it  has  far  more  than  doubled  its  proportions 
within  the  year. 

Another  interesting  and  encouraging  point  to  be  noted  is  the  warm  expres¬ 
sion  of  sympathy  which  comes  from  beyond  the  sea.  As  with  us,  there  is  in 
the  most  advanced  Christian  nations  of  Europe  a  strong  party  in  favor  of 
secularism.  This  party  in  Great  Britain  is  striving  to  strip  the  Government 
of  every  Christian  feature.  Many  of  the  warmest  friends  of  Christian  institu¬ 
tions  favor  disestablishment.  But  with  them  are  many  of  the  same  stripe  as 
those  who  are  our  legitimate  opponents  here — the  enemies  of  the  Christian 
religion.  These  are  warring  not  only  against  the  church  establishments  of 
Great  Britain,  but  against  every  Christian  element  in  the  noblest  institutions 
of  that  noble  nation.  The  friends  of  Christian  government  there  see  that  the 
question  of  the  day  with  us,  as  well  as  with  them,  is  the  question  of  the  rela¬ 
tion  of  the  state  to  religion.  And  well  aware  that  Christians  of  all  denomina¬ 
tions  here,  opposed  now,  as  they  always  have  been,  to  the  establishment  and 
endowment  of  any  church  by  the  state,  still  unite  in  the  endeavor  to  have  our 
nation  acknowledge  God  and  Christ  and  the  Bible,  for  itself  in  its  own  inde¬ 
pendent  sphere,  and  not  through  the  medium  of  any  ecclesiastical  establish¬ 
ment,  our  Christian  brethren  from  across  the  Atlantic  send  us  the  expression 
of  their  most  cordial  sympathy,  and  the  assurance  of  their  prayers  for  our 
success. 

In  the  present  stage  of  the  movement  there  is  a  manifest  necessity  for  instant 
attention  to  the  following  points : 

1.  The  friends  of  our  Christian  institutions  should  take  measures  at  once  for 
the  most  effective  action  and  cooperation.  They  must  organize.  Wherever 
even  a  few  of  them  are  found  they  should  form  themselves  into  a  society,  and 
link  themselves  with  the  National  Association. 

2.  To  give  enduring  vitality  to  these  organizations  scattered  through  the 
country,  a  common  work  must  be  taken  in  hand.  No  more  suitable  work  pre¬ 
sents  itself  than  the  circulation  of  petitions.  If  this  Convention  should  direct 
that  petitions  be  prepared  and  placed  in  the  hands  of  every  local  society,  and  k 
if  the  members  of  this  Convention,  on  their  return  home,  in  case  a  local  organi¬ 
zation  has  not  yet  been  effected,  should  at  once  organize,  and  begin  to  hold 
meetings  and  secure  signatures  to  the  petition,  we  might  send  from  the  next 
National  Convention  a  delegation  to  Congress,  with  hundreds  of  thousands  of 
names  praying  for  the  desired  amendment.  Who  can  estimate  what  even 
one  year’s  earnest  work  on  the  part  of  all  of  us  might  do  ? 

3.  To  help  forward  the  work  of  organization  and  of  obtaining  signatures  to 
the  petitions,  as  many  lecturers  as  possible  should  take  the  field  during  all  the 
fine  weather  of  autumn,  and  for  at  least  two  months  before  the  next  National 
Convention. 

4.  To  accomplish  all  this  we  must  give  liberally  of  our  substance.  We  must 
live  up  to  the  words  of  an  eloquent  Baptist  clergyman  of  a  neighboring  city, 


ft 


44  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

who  stined  the  heart  of  the  citizens  at  a  large  meeting  there  a  few  evenings 
since  .  Foi  my  part,  I  am  to  be  counted  on  the  side  of  this  cause  in  body, 
soul,  time,  influence,  and  pocket-book.” 

Allow  me,  in  concluding  this  report,  to  suggest  that  members  of  this  Con¬ 
vention  be  appointed  to  present  the  claims  of  the  movement  before  the  various 
bodies  that  may  assemble  during  the  year.  I  would  also  suggest  that  many 
ol  our  number  may  help  the  cause  in  an  effective  way  by  preparing  a  report  of 
the  Convention  for  one  of  the  religious  weeklies,  or  for  any  local  paper. 

Fellow-laborers,  let  us  pledge  ourselves  to-day,  with  prayer  for  Divine  guid¬ 
ance,  to  renewed  and  more  earnest  efforts  during  the  year  before  us. 


The  Executive  Committee  of  the  National  Association  next  pre¬ 
sented  their  report  for  the  past  year.  The  report  was  accepted,  and 
its  recommendations  adopted.  It  is  as  follows  : 


REPORT  OF  THE  EXECUTIVE  COMMITTEE. 

Your  Committee  would  respectfully  report  : 

1.  That  two  thousand  copies  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  National  Convention 
at  Cincinnati  were  published  in  pamphlet  form,  and  judiciously  distributed. 
An  account  of  the  origin  and  progress  of  the  movement  was  prefixed  to  this 
lepoit,  and  the  whole  pamphlet  has  been  found  of  great  service,  as  the  most 
complete  and  comprehensive  presentation  of  our  principles  and  aims. 

2.  The  report  of  the  Treasurer  herewith  submitted,  shows  receipts  during 
the  year  of  $4,046.93,  all  of  which  has  been  acknowledged  in  the  columns  of 
the  Christian  Statesman,  and  expenditures  to  the  amount  of  $4,002.10, 
under  the  direction  of  your  Committee,  leaving  a  balance  at  date  of  $44.83. 

3.  The  work  has  been  rewarded  during  the  year  with  the  most  gratifying- 
success.  More  general  information  of  the  character  of  the  Amendment  which 
is  proposed,  and  the  increasing  boldness  and  activity  of  the  enemies  of  our 
Christian  institutions,  have  led  hundreds  of  thoughtful  men  heartily  to 
espouse  our  cause  ;  and  an  earnest  sympathy  has  been  awakened  in  Great 
Biitain,  where  the  same  principles  are  involved  in  a  kindred  struggle  on  the 
question  of  religious  education. 

4.  Your  Committee  recommend  the  general  circulation,  during  the  next 
year,  of  petitions  to  Congress  in  behalf  of  the  Amendment  which  we  seek, 
and  submit  the  following  form  for  the  Adoption  of  this  Convention  : 

7b  the  Honorable ,  the  Members  of  the  Se/iate  and  House  of  Representatives  in 
Congress  assembled  :  ' 


0.,^eundersi!ned’cltl^ns«f  die  United  States,  petition  your  honorable  bodies  for 
nnr  l*1?  amendment  to  the  Constitution  of  tue  United  States,  as  will  suitably  express 
Z0nmniJ  acknowledgment  <»1  Almighty.God  as  the  source  of  all  authority  uncivil 
gc  eminent,  ot  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Ruler  of  nations,  and  of  His  revealed 
wdl  as  ot  supreme  authority  ;  and  thus  indicate  that  this  is  a  Cnr.stian  nation  and 
place  all  the  Christian  laws,  institutions  and  usages  of  the  Government  on  an  un¬ 
deniable  legal  basis  in  the  fundamental  law  ot  the  land. 


5.  Your  Committee  recommend  that  this  Convention  do,  and  hereby  does 
respectfully  request  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Pennsylvania,  now  in 
session  in  the  City  of  Philadelphia,  to  place  suitable  religious  acknowledg¬ 
ments  in  the  draft  of  the  Constitution  to  be  submitted  to  the  peopl^  of  that 
State  lor  their  adoption,  and  that  the  delegates  from  Pennsylvania  in  this 


ADDRESS  OF  MR.  LYTLE. 


45 


Convention  be  appointed  to  bear  this  request  to  that  body.  We  recommend, 
further,  that  the  Executive  Committee  to  be  appointed  at  this  Convention  be 
charged  to  present  a  similar  request  on  behalf  of  the  National  Association  to 
the  Constitutional  Convention  of  Ohio,  and  to  other  similar  Conventions 
which  may  meet  during  the  year, 

G.  Your  Committee  recommend  that  a  subscription  be  taken  up  in  this  Con¬ 
vention  for  the  treasury  of  the  National  Association. 

7.  That  the  delegates  to  this  Convention  be  recommended  to  hold  meetings 
in  their  several  localities,  to  ratify  its  proceedings,  and  to  form,  wherever 
practicable,  societies  auxiliary  to  the  National  Association. 

A  resolution  presented  by  Mrs.  Jane  G.  Swisshelm  was  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Resolutions,  and,  after  slight  modification,  was 
adopted  in  the  following  form  : 

Resolved ,  That  the  cause  for  which  this  Convention  has  met  is  one  that  com¬ 
mends  itself  to  the  special  sympathy  and  concern  of  the  Christian  women  of 
our  land,  and  they  are  confidently  relied  upon  for  their  earnest  cooperation  in 
giving  it  final  success. 

This  resolution  called  forth  an  animated  discussion,  in  which 
there  was  a  hearty  recognition  of  the  importance  of  woman’s  aid  in 
every  good  work. 

On  motion,  the  Convention  adjourned  to  meet  at  two  o’clock 

P.  M. 


AFTERNOON  SESSION. 

The  Convention  was  called  to  order  by  the  First  Vice-President, 
Mr.  John  Alexander,  who  called  on  the  Rev.  Dr.  Sloane  to  open  the 
meeting  with  prayer. 

After  the  transaction  of  unimportant  business,  the  President  ap¬ 
peared,  took  the  chair,  and  introduced  the  Rev.  J.  P.  Lytle,  of  Ohio, 
who  spoke  as  follows : 

ADDRESS  OF  MR.  LYTLE. 

Mr.  Chairman,  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention  :  We  meet  in  this 
place  to  advocate  the  adoption  of  what  may  be  called  the  “17th  Amendment 
to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,”  or,  as  it  is  usually  called,  “  The  Re¬ 
ligious  Amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution.”  The  time  was  when 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  was  regarded  as  so  sacred  an  instrument, 
that  to  speak  of  amending  it,  or  tpucliing  it  in  any  form  for  the  purpose  of  al¬ 
teration,  would  have  been  regarded  as  sacrilege.  But  that  time  has,  in  the 
Providence  of  God,  passed  by.  In  our  day,  within  ten  years  past,  we  have 
seen  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  amended,  and  amended,  again  and 
again  ;  and  the  idea  that  it,  as  first  formed,  contained  the  perfection  of  all  human 
wisdom,  has  been  dissipated,  and  we  have  come  to  discover  that  it  was  a  delu¬ 
sion.  We  have  already  passed  upon,  and  adopted  the  14tli  and  the  15th,  and 
likewise  the  16th  Amendment.  We  have  through  that  document  abolished 
slavery  wherever  the  Stars  and  Stripes  float.  We  have,  by  the  same  process, 


46  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

made  all  men  of  all  colors,  and  of  all  nations,  equal  before  the  law,  and  we 
have  established  universal  suffrage.  Now,  then,  having  thus  secured  and 
guaranteed  by  the  Constitution  the  rights  of  man,  we  seek  to  go  still  further, 
and  in  this  grand  instrument  which  commands  the  respect  of  not  only  the  citi¬ 
zens  ot  the  United  States,  but  of  all  the  world,  we  seek  to  secure  the  acknowl¬ 
edgment  of  Almighty  God,  the  author  and  preserver  of  our  national  existence. 
And  in  doing  so,  we  are  not  ignorant  of  the  fact  that  we  shall  encounter  for¬ 
midable  opposition.  Everywhere  clouds  dark  and  lowering  gather  in  opposi¬ 
tion  to  this  movement.  A  ou  have  heard  the  muttering  of  the  thunder  of  that 
infidel  oigan  located  at  Joledo.  A  ou  have  heard  the  echo  of  this  from  the 
office  of  the  Independent ,  even  from  the  Senate  of  the  United  States.  The  Chair¬ 
man  of  the  Judiciary  Committee,  Mr.  Trumbull,  has  said  that  “  The  Consti¬ 
tution  of  the  United  States  needs  no  such  amendment,”  and  we  have  heard  the 
response  from  the  throne  above,  “  And  I  have  no  need  of  you.”  [Applause.] 
The  enemies  of  our  movement  naturally  draw  into  their  ranks  all  infidels,  Jews, 
Jesuits, -and  all  opposers  of  Him  who  is  Lord  over  all,  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ. 

It  may  be  asked,  “  How  shall  we  succeed  against  such  a  mighty  host?”  We 
aie  like  Israel  of  old  “two  little  flocks  of  kids,  while  the  Syrians  fill  the 
country.”  We  are  few,  while  our  enemies  fill  the  land.  We  look  for  success 
to  two  sources  :  first,  we  look  up  to  that  jjersonal  God,  whose  crown  rights 
and  loyal  prerogatives  are  involved  in  this  question.  [Applause.]  And 
through  Him  “one  shall  chase  a  thousand,  and  two  put  ten  thousand  to  flight.” 
One  with  God  at  his  side  and  God  at  his  back  is  more  than  all  the  hosts  of 
His  enemies.  We  look  to  this  mighty  God  who  reigns  over  all  for  light, 
stiength  and  success.  Through  Him  we  shall  vanquish  those  who  oppose  us. 
That  is  not  all :  we  look  to  another  source. 

We  make  very  little  account  of  ourselves  in  this  contest.  We  look  to  others. 
We  look  to  our  enemies— to  such  men  as  speak  through  the  Index — for  power¬ 
ful  aid.  The  editor  ot  that  journal,  far-sighted  and  frank,  has  seen  and 
declared  the  state  of  things  at  which  they  aim,  and  the  end  which  will  have, 
been  accomplished  when  their  principles  have  become  popular.  When  the 
people  see  what  these  men  hope  and  labor  for,  they  will  be  shocked.  Out  in 
Ohio,  at  one  point  on  the  Baltimore  and  Ohio  Railroad,  on  what  is  called 
section  16,”  there  is  a  very  heavy  grade.  The  locomotive,  in  attempting  to 
ascend  that  grade,  often  sticks  and  stops,  and  the  train  rolls  backward.  To 
overcome  this  difficulty,  they  have  what  is  called  there  a  “helper” — a  power¬ 
ful  engine  to  assist ;  and  with  this  one  pushing  at  the  rear  of  the  train  and 
heading  in  the  contrary  direction,  and  the  other  engine  pulling,  the  train  is 
diawn  up  the  hill.  A  stranger  at  a  distance,  looking  at  the  train,  with  its 
engines  pointed  in  opposite  directions,  would  naturally  suppose  they  would 
neutralize  each  other,  pulling  different  ways.  And  if  you  stood  at  this  end  of 
the  train,  you  might  think  the  “helper”  was  about  to  run  over  you,  and  take 
the  whole  train  with  it.  On  examination,  you  would  see  that  the  machinery 
was  really  working  in  the  other  direction — actually  pushing  the  train  up  the 
hill.  Now,  my  friends,  the  train  is  the  thirty-six  or  thirty-seven  States  of  the 
Union.  The  section  on  which  the  difficult}^  connected  with  our  cause  occurs 
is  not  exactly  “  section  16,”  but  it  is  section  17,  in  which  we  seek  to  have  the 
amendment  of  the  United  States  Constitution.  And  on  this  section  the  engine 
in  front  of  the  train  is  the  Christian  Association  ;  and  the  other  engine  is  Mr. 

I  rancis  E.  Abbot  and  Company  in  the  Index  and  similar  papers.  Some  think 


ADDRESS  OF  REV.  J.  HOGG. 


47 


they  are  very  dangerous,  and  will  drag  us  all  down  into  an  abyss  of  infidelity, 
atheism,  profligacy  and  ruin;  but  if  you  come  a  little  closer  and  examine,  you 
will  see  that  their  machinery  is  really  working  in  the  other  direction. 

We  need  something  to  arouse  public  sentiment  ;  to  reach  the  commercial 
classes  and  formal  Christians ;  to  show  the  American  people  at  large  the  end 
aimed  at  by  the  advocates  of  the  secular  theory  of  government,  as  illustrated 
in  the  French  Revolution  of  1798,  and  the  more  recent  Paris  Commune.  And 
what  instrumentality  could  be  ^better  adapted  to  our  work  ?  The  Christian 
Association  enlisting  friends  by  reason  and  argument,  and  the  Index  Associa¬ 
tion  driving  neutrals  and  indifferentists  into  the  movement  from  sheer  neces¬ 
sity  of  self-preservation  -,  our  enemies  pushing  and  we  pulling,  and  the  power 
of  God  working  over  all,  our  onward  course  is  certain.  And  when  we  reach 
the  summit,  Mr.  Abbot  and  his  “  Helper  ”  will  be  switched  off  the  track  ; 
while  the  train  will  move  out  iffto  the  mild  yet  glorious  light  of  Millennial 
days,  and  the  cry  will  be  raised,  “  The  kingdoms  of  this  world  have  become 
the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord,  and  of  His  Christ.”  [Applause.] 

_ § 

The  President  next  introduced  the  Rev.  John  Hogg,  of  Massa¬ 
chusetts,  who  delivered  the  following  address  : 

ADDRESS  OF  REV.  J.  HOGG. 

Mr.  President,  Ladies  and  Gentlemen  :  When  I  listened  to  the  mag¬ 
nificent  addresses  delivered  here  yesterday,  I  had  no  expectation  of  appearing- 
on  this  platform.  I  feel  that  it  is  little  short  of  presumption  for  me  to  stand 
here,  and  I  do  so  merely  to  show  what  side  I  am  on.  [Applause.]  You  know 
that  it  takes  all  kinds  of  people  to  make  a  world,  and  all  kinds  of  speakers  to 
make  up  a  convention.  I  remember  reading  once  an  anecdote  of  Coleridge, 
who,  with  all  his  genius,  was  in  some  things  very  awkward.  Coming  along  a 
country  road  one  day,  riding  on  horseback  with  his  knees  almost  up  to  his 
chin,  he  was  met  by  a  wag,  who  not  knowing  his  man,  and  thinking  to  have  a 
little  fun,  exclaimed  :  “  Halloo,  my  man,  did  you  meet  a  tailor  on  the  way  ?  ” 
“  Yes,  sir,”  replied  the  wit,  “  and  he  told  me  that  if  I  went  a  little  further  on 
I  would  meet  a  goose.”  And  so  it  seems  to  me,  that  the  eloquent  speakers  by 
whom  I  have  been  preceded,  like  scientific  tailors,  have  been  putting  in  their 
stitch,  stitch,  stitch,  in  the  garments  of  glory  and  beauty  with  which  we  seek 
to  clothe  the  nation,  and  now  I  am  ready  to  be  a  goose,  or  anything  else,  to 
smooth  down  the  ^eam.  [Laughter  and  applause.] 

I  stand  here  to-day  the  representative  of  a  large  class  of  individuals,  who 
might  aptly  be  called  the  weak-backed  and  feeble-kneed.  The  truth  is,  I  have 
been  on  the  fence,  uncertain  on  which  side  to  get  down.  It  is  but  lately  that 
I  have  been  led  to  examine  the  matter,  feeling  that  the  time  has  come  when 
every  honest  man  must  take  his  position.  [Applause.]  I  feel  already  the  effect 
of  being  present  at  this  Convention,  for  my  back  has  been  stiffened,  and  my 
heart  strengthened  for  the  work. 

I  have  reached  a  conclusipn  in  harmony  with  the  object  of  this  Convention, 
by  something  like  the  following  process  of  thought :  Starting  with  the  idea 
that  a  nation  is  a  moral  entity,  responsible  to  God  for  its  actions,  history  seems 
to  be  little  more  than  a  record  of  the  death  of  nations.  The  old  empires  of 
antiquity,  about  which  so  many  volumes  have  been  written,  have  passed  away. 


48  Proceedings  of  the  national  convention. 

Even  Rome  itself,  the  grand  old  iron  empire,  had  its  decline  and  fall.  And 
why  ?  Some  tell  us  that  nations,  like  men,  must  necessarily,  after  full  develop¬ 
ment,  sink  into  dissolution.  Others  say  that  nations,  when  they  enjoy  pros¬ 
perity  and  acquire  wealth,  become  luxurious,  immoral,  and  effeminate  ;  and 
therein  lie  the  seeds  of  death.  It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  a  nation’s  life 
depends  wholly  upon  the  character  of  its  religion.*  Rome  had  religion  enough 
to  give  her  grit  and  energy  for  a  time.  Even  Paganism  could  carry  a  nation  a 
certain  length,  and  still  preserve  a  balance  between  the  intellect  and  the  con¬ 
science.  So  long  as  this  was  the  case,  Rome  stood,  and  swayed  a  mighty 
sceptre  ;  but  when  the  intellect  got  in  advance  of  her  religion  and  repudiated 
it,  then  Rome  went  down.  [Applause.}  The  only  religion  that  can  forever 
bind  together  and  preserve  a  nation’s  life  is  the  religion  of  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ.  The  ideas  of  Jesus  are  ever  in  advance  of  human  progress,  and  the 
most  cultivated  intellect  acknowledges  their  pbwer.  Jesus  said,  “Whosoever 
believeth  in  me  shall  never  die  ;  ”  and  what  is  true  of  an  individual  is  also 
true  of  a  nation.  The  nation  that  takes  hold  upon  God  and  the  Lord  Jesus 
Christ  shall  never  die.  [Applause.] 

That  these  United  States  are,  on  the  whole,  Christian,  cannot  be  doubted. 
There  are  at  least  twenty-five  millions  of  nominal  Christians  in  our  land.  Is 
this  Christianity  to  be  made  so  operative  as  to  secure  our  national  life  ?  The 
question  is  a  momentous  one.  Is  our  nation  to  live  or  die?  You  heard  a  man 
hissing  here  yesterday.  What  is  he  ?  Just  the  representative  of  the  vast  mass 
of  irreligion  in  our  land.  Perched  on  the  summit  of  liberty,  sacred  only  to 
holy  purposes,  and  purchased  by  the  blood  of  Christian  martyrs,  the  hisses  of 
the  irreligious  at  every  movement  that  would  limit  their  abuse  of  liberty, 
sound  the  watchword  of  increased  licentiousness,  the  death-knell  of  our 
nation’s  life.  [Applause.]  Again,  the  corruption  at  present  existing  in  our 
land  is  appalling.  The  nation’s  conscience  seems  to  be  uncontrolled  by  its 
Christianity.  There  are  breakers  ahead,  and  unless  the  ship  be  turned  on  a 
different  track  I  see  no  alternative  but  that  she  must  founder.  Our  nation  is 
but  new  born.  Her  first  centennial  has  not  yet  been  celebrated.  Designed, 
doubtless,  to  work  out  some  grand  purpose  of  Divine  Providence ;  born  of 
Christian  principles,  and  enjoying  a  birthright  of  Christian  freedom,  yet  the 
Father  of  Nations  is  not  acknowledged,  and  I  fear  His  great  name  was  design¬ 
edly  omitted  from  her  organic  law.  I  cannot  agree  altogether  with  some 
things  said  by  preceding  speakers,  in  their  endeavor  to  account  for  this  fatal 
defect.  There  is  no  connection  between  the  establishment  of  a  State  religion, 
or  minding  the  conscience  of  sectarians,  and  the  acknowledgment  of  God  as 
the  Father  of  Nations.  Infidelity,  and  nothing  else,  was  the  animus  of  the 
omission — the  infidelity  of  Paine  and  of  France  with  which  some  of  the  promi¬ 
nent  framers  of  the  Constitution  were  deeply  imbued.  If  anything  is  needed 
to  prove  this  position,  it  is  found  in  the  fact  that  they  almost  unanimously  re¬ 
fused  to  ask  Almighty  God  to  guide  them  in  their  deliberations.  I  am  appre¬ 
hensive  that  our  national  Constitution,  wisely  framed  though  it  be,  is  a  child 
of  merely  human  parents,  and  unless  the  defect  be  remedied,  it  must,  like  its 
authors,  die.  If  we  mean  it  to  live,  we  must  have  it  imbued  with  a  divine 
life.  .  ' 

But  it  is  said — “  If  the  nation  be  on  the  whole  Christian,  what  difference  can 
an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  make?  Until  lately  this  was  to  me  a 
stumbling  block.  It  appeared  to  me  an  act  of  mere  formality.  If  done  to- 


REPOETS  OF  COMMITTEES. 


49 


morrow  it  would  not  change  the  nation’s  character  in  the  least  degree.  So  I 
thought  until  reflection  removed  the  difficulty.  The  lapse  of  a  few  score  of 
years  has  not  obliterated  from  the  mind  of  God  the  fact,  that  the  framers  of  the 
Constitution  deliberately  insulted  Him,  and  that  the  whole  people  became  im¬ 
plicated  in  that  act.  The  fearful  ordeal  through  which  our  nation  has  already 
passed,  and  the  seething  corruption  which  now  fills  us  with  foreboding  fears, 
are  but  the  fitting  sequence  of  a  nalion’s  disregard  of  God.  I  can  see  no  remedy 
but  repentance — national  repentance.  If  we  expect  God  to  honor  us  we  must 
honor  Him.  W e  should  confess  and  forsake  our  sins,  and  declare  that  we  will 
give  God  His  place  as  head  of  our  nation.  When  we  do  this,  then  God  will 
cause  His  face  to  shine  upon  us ;  but  if  we  refuse,  we  can  only  expect  the  rod  to 
fall  upon  us  with  increasing  weight.  You  remember  the  period  in  our  late  civil 
war  when  the  heart  of  the  nation  was  crushed  by  continued  reverses.  A  dark 
pall  seemed  to  rest  over  a  loyal  ’people,  and  many  were  beginning  to  exclaim, 
“  Give  us  peace  and  let  the  rebels  go.”  It  was  then  our  lamented,  martyred 
President  performed  one  of  the  sublimest  acts  that  history  records.  Taught  of 
God,  and  no  doubt  grasping  the  idea  that  the  chastising  rod  was  in  God’s  hand, 
he  issued  his  Proclamation  which  broke  the  fetters  from  the  slave.  He  drew 
his  pen  across  that  foul  blot  on  the  escutcheon  of  our  nation.  It  was  seemingly 
a  formal  thing.  The  Constitution  legally  fostered  slavery.  The  President 
wiped  the  ugly  thing  out.  The  people  shouted  Amen  !  Slavery  was  abolished. 
Then  mark  the  issue — victory  at  once  perched  on  our  banners.  Our  armies 
went  forth  conquering,  until  rebellion  was  finally  subdued.  Let  us  act  similarly 
in  respect  to  the  remaining  blot  of  Atheistic  silence  in  the  Constitution,  and  see 
if  the  tide  of  battle  will  not  turn  as  evidently  in  favor  of  truth,  righteousness 
and  prosperity.  Let  us  acknowledge  God  as  our  Father,  and  sovereign,  and 
source  of  all  good,  and  His  blessing  will  be  upon  us.  Crime  and  corruption 
will  come  to  an  end,  and  the  benign  reign  of  Jesus,  our  rightful  Lord,  will  be 
established.  [Applause.] 


The  Executive  Committee  reported  in  favor  of  granting  twenty 
minutes  to  the  opponents  of  the  movement,  who  had  sought  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  present  their  remonstrance  and  objections.  This  recom¬ 
mendation  being  approved  by  the  Convention,  the  Chairman  of  the 
meeting  at  Vineland,  N.  J.,  appointed  by  some  of  the  citizens  of  that 
place  to  appear  before  the  Convention  and  protest  against  its  object, 
took  the  platform.  He  was  courteously  and  patiently  heard,  and 
the  time  allotted  him  was  even  extended,  until  a  grossly  disrespect¬ 
ful  allusion  to  the  Bible  provoked  indignant  remonstrance  from 
several  members,  and  the  permission  accorded  was  withdrawn. 


The  Committee  on  Enrollment  reported  that -470  persons  had  en¬ 
rolled  themselves  as  members  of  the  Convention  representing  nine¬ 
teen  States  and  one  Territory,  and  that  three  hundred  and  sixty- 
three  bore  certificates  of  their  appointment  as  delegates  by  various 
public  assemblies  and  organized  societies. 


50 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION  * 


The  subscription  recommended  by  the  Committee  on  Resolu- 
tions,  and  by  the  Executive  Committee,  was  then  entered  upon. 
The  General  Secretary  stated  that  he  had  already  received  many 
and  generous  contributions  from  earnest  friends  who  could  not  be 
present  at  the  Convention,  and  after  stating  a  number  of  instances 
of  commendable  liberality,  read  the  following  paper  which  had 
been  placed  in  his  hands : 

• 

By  the  Grace  and  Providence  of  God  enabling  me,  I  will  contribute  to  the 
Treasury  ot  the  National  Association  for  securing  the  amendment  of  the 
Constitution  ot  the  United  States,  the  sum  of  five  hundred  dollars ,  annually, 
until  an  amendment  {in  substance  such  as  at  present  proposed  by  this  Association) 
shall  be  made  to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States. 

If  this  amendment  is  not  made  during  my  lifetime,  I  shall  hope  to  continue 
the  aforesaid  annual  payments  through  the  agency  of  the  legal  representatives 
of  my  estate. 

“  I  can  do  all  things  through  Christ  which  strengtheneth  me.” 

Philadelphia ,  Feb.  2 6^,  1873. 

John  Alexander. 

The  impression  produced  by  the  calm  and  devout  earnestness  of 
this  paper  was  deepened  by  the  stirring  speech  of  Walter  T.  Miller, 
Esq.,  of  New  York,  who  named  twenty  thousand  dollars  as  the 
amount  which  can,  and  ought  to  be,  raised  this  year  for  the  work 
of  the  National  Association,  and  who  pledged  himself  to  give  the 
twentieth  part  of  all  the  receipts  of  the  treasury  for  the  year. 

Mr.  Miller  and  Mr.  James  Wiggins,  of  New  York,  each  sub¬ 
scribed  $500,  the  latter  also  promising  to  give  one-twentieth  of 
$20,000.  Henry  Martin,  Esq.,  and  lady,  of  Cincinnati,  subscribed 
$300  ;  Dr.  Magee,  of  White  Ash,  Pa.,  one-third  of  $1,000,  the  other 
two-thirds  of  which  are  to  be  given  by  Messrs.  David  Torrens,  Jno. 
McWilliams,  and  some  other  liberal  gentleman  whose  name  we 
have  not  before  us.  We  might  go  on  and  give  the  names  of  friends 
who  this  year,  as  heretofore,  have  given  $100.  But  enough  has 
been  said  to  show  how  generously  the  response  was  made  to  the 
call  for  funds  for  an  expansion  of  the  work. 

It  is  but  due  to  Mr.  Alexander,  whose  contribution  of  $500  is  to 
be  continued  annually  until  the  movement  is  crowned  with  success, 
to  state  that  for  this  year,  in  addition  to  the  five  hundred  dollars, 
he  has  most  generously  agreed  to  give  $1,000,  if  by  this  additional 
contribution  the  whole  sum  for  the  year  can  be  raised  to  $20,000. 

The  amount  subscribed,  apart  from  all  sums  promised  condi¬ 
tionally,  was  $5,360.00.  The  receipts  of  the  Association,  from  or¬ 
dinary  sources,  will  no  doubt  be  larger  this  year  than  ever  before. 
The  National  Association  thus  has  placed  at  its  disposal,  for  this 
year,  two  to  three  times  as  much  as  it  has  ever  heretofore  employed 
in  its  operations  for  a  single  year. 


ADDRESS  BY  PRESIDENT  H.  H.  GEORGE. 


51 


The  President  then  introduced  the  Rev.  H.  H.  George,  President 
of  the  Geneva  Collegiate  Institute,  Ohio,  who  spoke  as  follows: 

ADDRESS  BY  PRESIDENT  H.  H.  GEORGE.  * 

The  question  of  education  is  one  that  is  fundamental  to  the  interests  and 
prosperity  of  any  nation.  To  one,  especially,  whose  government  is  by  the 
people,  it  must  be  prejudicial  to  misconceive  the  importance  of  it,  and  only 
suicidal  to  ignore  it.  It  requires  no  far-sightedness  to  perceive  that  as  the 
youth  of  a  country  are  educated,  as  their  intellects  are  cultivated,  and  their 
moral  natures  are  bent,  such  must  sooner  or  later  be  the  cast  of  the  institutions 
of  that  country.  Give  me  the  vast  multitudes  of  children  in  this  land  to  con¬ 
trol  and  educate  as  I  will ;  let  me  prescribe  the  system  of  rules  by  which  they 
shall  be  trained,  furnish  teacher  and  text-book,  and  I  care  not  what  your  insti¬ 
tutions  are  to-day,  I  will  give  such  as  suit  myself  before  the  lapse  of  many 
years. 

If  any  man  or  party  of  men  had  it  in  purpose  to  revolutionize  the  govern¬ 
ment  of  a  country,  no  more  favorable  point  of  attack,  no  more  hopeful  starting 
place,  could  be  selected  than  the  youth  of  that  land  in  their  first  and  most  sus¬ 
ceptible  years  of  training.  A  great  orator  of  this  country  has  said  :  “The  man 
who  sets  an  idea  on  two  feet,  and  bids  it  travel  from  Maine  to  Georgia,  has 
done  more  to  revolutionize  his  country  than  if,  to  overthrow  the  Capitol,  he  had 
put  powder  under  the  Senate  chambers.”  And  where  can  that  molding,  revo¬ 
lutionizing  idea  be  more  certainly  and  successfully  started,  than  in  the  minds 
of  the  children  as  they  learn  their  first  lessons  at  the  common  schools  ? 

The  keen-sighted  enemy  of  the  Bible  who  hates  the  religion  it  inculcates,  has 
fully  comprehended  this  truth,  and  hence  his  first  and  furious  attack  is  upon 
that  Bible  in  the  hands  of  the  little  boys  and  girls  of  our  land  just  as  they  are 
learning  to  read.  Well  he  knows  the  power  of  the  leverage  of  the  youthful 
mind,  in  his  attempts  to  put  down  the  Bible  and  secularize  the  institutions  of 
the  country. 

But  let  us  notice  the  prominence  given  to  the  moral  and  religious  features  of 
state  education  upon  the  page  of  history  : 

“  Religionibus  et  artibus  sacrum”  has  been  written  on  the  portals  of  schools, 
academies  and  colleges  from  time  immemorial. 

The  schools  of  the  ancient  Grecian  philosophers  were  devoted  plainly  to  the 
study  of  the  nature  of  the  gods,  and  the  spiritual  nature  of  man. 

Pythagoras  taught  the  harmony  of  the  universe,  man’s  immortal  destiny, 
and  the  paramount  importance  of  his  moral  nature. 

Aristotle  taught  to  the  Athenian  youth  a  philosophy  in  which  theology  bore 
a  most  conspicuous  place. 

Trace  the  historic  page  from  the  Christian  era,  and  we  find  religious  teaching 
a  predominating  element  in  almost  every  century,  and  at  no  time  was  it  con¬ 
sidered  less  important  than  secular  instruction. 

Recognizing  the  fundamental  importance  of  education,  and  especially  its 
moral  and  religious  character,  those  modern  nations  that  have  led  the  van  of 
civilization  and  improvement  have  given  it  a  distinct  prominence  in  their 
systems  of  government. 

In  Dr.  Stowe’s  report,  a  few  years  ago,  to  the  Ohio  Legislature,  he  says  ; 


52 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


“In  Germany  the  school  system  embraces  a  course  of  eight  years,  making 
four  divisions  of  two  years  each.”  And  after  summing  up  the  branches  taught 
in  these  respective  divisions,  he  adds  :  “  In  the  first  is  given  religious  instruc¬ 
tion  and  the  singing  of  hymns  ;  in  the  second  is  religious  instruction  in  select 
Bible  narratives  ;  in  the  third  is  religious  instruction  in  the  connected  Bible 
history  ;  in  the  fourth  division,  including  children  from  ten  to  sixteen  years 
old,  is  given  religious  instruction  on  the  religious  observation  of  nature,  the 
life  and  discourses  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  history  of  the  Christian  religion  in  con¬ 
nection  with  the  contemporary  civil  history,  the  doctrines  of  Christianity.” 

Barnard,  in  treating  of  the  subjects  and  methods  of  instruction  in  Prussia, 
says:  “  That  every  complete  elementary  school  in  that  country  gives  instruction 
in  religion  and  morality,  established  on  the  positive  truths  of  Christianity.” 

“  In  the  public  schools  of  Berlin  instruction  is  given  in  the  Bible,  the  Cate¬ 
chism,  the  positive  truths  of  Christianity.” 

“In  Switzerland  a  teacher  must  have  a  certificate  from  the  clergyman  of  his 
own  church  that  he  is  fitted,  both  by  character  and  education,  to  conduct  the 
religious  instruction  in  the  school  for  which  he  is  designed.” 

“  In  Russia  it  is  assumed  that  religious  teaching  constitutes  the  only  solid 
foundation  of  all  useful  instruction.” 

* 

Following  the  example  of  those  olden  nations,  and  learning  a  lesson  from  the 
pages  of  history,  almost  every  State  in  our  Union  has  made  salutary  law7s  con¬ 
cerning  both  the  matter  and  the  manner  of  the  education  of  its  youth.  Let 
the  constitutional  provision  of  the  noble  State  of  Ohio  suffice  for  illustration 
here : 

“  Religion,  morality  and  knowledge  being  essentially  necessary  to  good  gov¬ 
ernment  and  the  happiness  of  mankind,  schools  and  the  means  of  instruction 
shall  forever  be  encouraged  by  legislative  provision  not  inconsistent  with  the 
rights  of  conscience.” 

Based  upon  this  and  similar  provisions  in  the  various  State  Constitutions,  the 
public  school  has  become  one  of  our  grandest  and  noblest  institutions.  Its 
influence  for  good  has  simply  been  incalculable.  It  has  contributed  largely  to 
the  moulding  of  our  civilization,  and  has  done  much  to  elevate  us  to  that  hon¬ 
orable  position  we  occupy  among  the  nations  of  the  world.  Nor  has  it  been 
hindered  in  its  noble  services,  save  only  as  the  modern  philosopher  has  come 
forward  to  call  its  founders  fools  and  madmen,  and  to  startle  the  world  with  a 
newr  light  and  a  more  liberal  philosophy. 

But  let  us  inquire  for  a  moment  what  is  education.  Webster  defines  it  to 
be  “  a  comprehension  of  all  that  series  of  instruction  and  discipline  which  is 
intended  to  enlighten  the  understanding,  correct  the  temper,  and  form  the 
manners  and  habits  of  youth,  and  fit  them  for  usefulness  in  their  future  sta¬ 
tions.”  He  adds:  “To  give  children  a  good  education  in  manners,  arts  and 
sciences  is  important  ;  to  give  them  a  religious  education  is  indispensable.  ” 

But  a  more  elaborate  definition  is  given  by  one  w7hom  all  will  admit  to  have 
been  among  the  ablest  educators  of  his  day,  Horace  Mann.  Says  he  :  “  All 

intelligent  thinkers  upon  the  subject  now  utterly  discard  and  repudiate  the 
idea  that  reading  and  writing,  with  a  knowledge  of  accounts,  constitute  edu¬ 
cation.  The  lowrest  claim  which  any  intelligent  man  now  prefers  in  its  behalf, 
is  that  its  domain  extends  over  the  three-fold  nature  of  man  ;  over  his  body, 
training  it  by  the  systematic  and  intelligent  observance  of  those  benign  laws 
which  secure  health,  impart  strength,  and  prolong  life ;  over  his  intellect, 
invigorating  the  mind,  replenishing  it  with  knowledge,  and  cultivating  all 
those  tastes  which  are  allied  to  virtue  ;  and  over  his  moral  and  religious  sus- 


ADDRESS  BY  PRESIDENT  H.  H.  GEORGE. 


53 


ceptibilities  also,  dethroning  selfishness,  enthroning  conscience,  leading  the 
affections  outwardly  in  good  will  toward  man,  and  upward  in  gratitude  and 
reverence  to  God.” 

This  definition  is  complete  and  exhaustive.  There  can  be  no  other  correct 
view  than  that  it  extends  to  the  entire  three-fold  nature  of  man.  And  educa¬ 
tion  short  of  this  must  be  only  partial,  limited,  dwarfed,  one-sided,  and  may 
be,  in  its  operations  and  results,  a  greater  curse  than  a  blessing.  Suppose,  for 
example,  we  should  disregard  the  mental  and  moral  natures,  and  educate  our 
youth  only  in  the  physical  (and  if  we  may  neglect  one,  by  the  same  rule  we 
may  another),  what  would  be  the  result  ?  There  might  be  produced  a  race  of 
athletes  suited  to  the  old  games  at  Olympia,  or  a  generation  of  Kings  and 
Heenans,  the  champions  of  the  modern  prize  ring — men  largely  animal,  with 
feeble  brains,  and  less  morals.  But  again,  should  we  develop  the  mind  alone, 
disregarding  the  physical  and  the  moral,  we  might  have  giant  intellects,  men 
who  are  able  to  wield  the  powers  of  government  or  shape  the  diplomacy  of 
nations,  yet  they  might  be  physical  dwarfs,  wrecks  of  disease,  and,  worse  than 
all,  moral  pests  upon  the  earth. 

But  still  again,  should  we  develop  the  physical  and  intellectual  both,  dis¬ 
carding  the  moral  natures,  as  the  enemies  of  our  schools  will  allow,  we 
might  have  stalwart  bodies  with  giant  minds,  but  no  morals  ;  mighty  agents 
for  evil,  feeders  on  corruption,  enemies  to  God,  and  destroyers  of  their  race. 

If  State  education  must  result  in  sending  forth  such  characters  as  any.  or 
all  these  to  the  world,  it  will  not  take  long  to  decide  that  it  is  a  most  dangerous 
and  damaging  institution,  and  ought  at  once  to  be  abandoned.  Were  the 
question  proposed  to  the  people  of  the  United  States  to-day — schools  without 
morality  and  without  Christianity,  or  no  schools  at  all  ?  the  Christian  people 
of  the  country  ought  not  to  ask  a  moment  to  decide,  no  schools  at  all.  Better 
far  that  our  noble  fabric  be  demolished,  than  that  it  be  converted  into  an 
enginery  of  immorality. 

But  let  me  here '  remind  the  advocates  for  an  education  divorced  from  all 
morals  and  religion,  that  their  demands  are  not  only  absurd  but  an  absolute 
impossibility.  All  nations  on  the  face  of  the  earth  have  some  standard  of 
morals.  Some  sort  of  morality  is  of  necessity  interwoven  into  their  whole 
machinery  of  government,  and  to  attempt  to  set  up  an  institution  of  education 
without  that  morality  would  be  like  setting  up  a  machine  without  its  master- 
wheel,  or  an  engine  without  its  driver. 

If  it  be  a  Mormon  country,  the  government  and  all  its  institutions  are  founded 
on  the  basis,  and  administered  according  to  the  standard  of  a  Mormon 
morality.  Even  its  trade,  its  manufactories,  its  improvements,  its  trials  before 
courts  of  justice,  its  pains  and  penalties,  all,  all  are  in  accordance  with  Mor¬ 
mon  right.  If  it  teaches  its  children  at  all,  it  must  teach  them  according  to 
the  standard  of  Mormon  morals. 

It  is  precisely  so  in  Mohammedan  countries,  and  in  all  Pagan  countries,  and 
can  it  be  less  so  in  a  Christian  land  ?  Verily  not.  To  attempt  a  system  of 
education  in  any  country,  wholly  divorced  from  the  morality  and  religion  of 
that  country,  is  not  only  unpliilosophical,  but  it  is  irrational.  Were  education 
only  the  combination  of  letters,  and  giving  to  these  when  combined  a  certain 
sound  (little  more  than  we  could  teach  a  parrot),  or  were  it  in  addition  the 
tracing  of  these  letters  upon  paper;  in  other  words,  were  it  only  the  art  of 
reading  and  writing,  it  might  be  separated  from  all  morality  and  religion ;  but 


54 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


when  we  remember  that  these  are  not  education  at  all,  but  only  the  mechani¬ 
cal  apparatus  by  which  the  child  is  enabled  to  acquire  it,  we  dare  assert  that 
the  moment  you  enter  the  domain  of  education,  that  moment  you  unavoidably 
have  to  do  with  some  standard  of  morals. 

The  meaning  of  many  of  the  choicest  words  in  our  language  is  inseparably 
connected  with  morality  and  religion  ;  for  example,  such  words  as  just  and 
true,  and  right  and  wrong,  in  a  Christian  land,  differ  infinitely  from  the  same 
words  in  a  Mormon,  a  Mohammedan,  or  Pagan  country.  And  it  is  absolutely 
impossible  to  teach  a  child  the  meaning  of  them  in  a  Christian  land,  without 
teaching  it  according  to  the  Christian  moral  standard.  If  morals  and  religion 
are  to  be  abolished  from  our  schools,  not  a  few  of  our  choicest  and  best  words 
must  go  out  in  the  same  abolition  sentence. 

But  could  a  child  be  taught  the  meaning  of  words,  there  is  not  a  step  in 
science,  there  is  not  a  step  in  philosophy,  there  is  not  a  grade  in  history,  that 
can  be  taken  without  a  standard  of  morals.  The  effort  to  secularize  our 
schools  is  only  a  covert  attack  upon  their  life  principles,  a  deadly  aim  at  their 
very  existence.  The  heart  purpose  of  the  projectors  is  not  written  on  the  fore¬ 
front  of  their  movement.  It  is  deeper  than  it  proposes.  As  infidelity  always 
does,  it  is  fighting  under  a  mask.  David  Hume  left  some  infidel  manuscripts 
with  directions  that  they  should  be  printed  and  published  after  his  death. 
Says  Dr.  Johnson :  “  He  loaded  a  blunderbuss,  directed  it  against  Christianity, 
and  sneaked  into  the  grave  leaving  another  to  fire  it  off.”  Ho  less  sneaking  is 
the  confederacy  of  the  J esuit  and  J ew,  infidel  and  atheist,  in  their  attacks  upon 
the  Bible  in  oui  schools.  They  are  no  friends  of  each  other.  They  are  really 
not  in  sypmathy.  They  have  not  the  same  ultimate  object  in  view  ;  but  they 
have  stiicken  hands  like  Herod  and  Pontius  Pilate  in  the  common  work  of  cru¬ 
cifying  Chiist.  The  Jew  would  not  object  to  the  Bible  if  it  wTere  his  own  part 
of  it.  The  Roman  Catholic  does  not  want  a  school  system  without  religion. 
He  has  never  said  so ;  he  dare  not.  To  ask  it  would  be  to  belie  the  tradition 
of  his  church  for  sixteen  hundred  years.  Archbishop  Purcell  has  given  the 
animus  of  the  movement  on  the  part  of  the  Catholics.  Says  he  :  “  The  entire 
government  of  public  schools  in  which  Catholic  youth  are  educated  cannot  be 
given  over  to  the  civil  power.  We,  as  Catholics,  cannot  approve  of  that  sys¬ 
tem  of  education  for  youth  which  is  apart  from  instruction  in  the  Catholic 
faith  and  the  teaching  of  the  Church.”  It  is  not  a  Bible  the  Catholic  opposes 
so  much  in  the  schools  as  it  is  the  Bible.  It  is  not  religion  he  opposes,  but  it  is 
Protestanism ;  and  so  deep  is  his  hatred  to  that,  he  will  join  with  infidel  and 
atheist  in  their  opposition  to  all  religion,  in  order  to  put  it  down. 

It  is  safe  to  say  that  the  Jesuit  has  a  secret  and  concealed  purpose  to  over¬ 
throw  our  entire  school  system,  in  the  hope  of  securing  pure  .and  unmixed 
Catholic  schools,  untainted  with  the  breath,  or  presence,  or  influence,  of  Protest¬ 
antism.  It  is  no  slander  to  say  that  Roman  Catholics  have  been  the  persistent 
and  untiring  enemies  of  our  schools,  and  gladly  embraced  the  opportunity  to 
strike  hands  with  any  party  or  parties  in  their  destruction. 

But  bound  together,  Jew  and  Jesuit,  infidel  and  atheist,  they  have  made  the 
attack.  By  a  counter-movement  on  the  part  of  the  friends  of  our  school 
system,  the  matter  has  been  carried  into  the  arena  of  law.  The  question  is 
stated,  can  we  have  the  Bible  in  our  schools  by  law  ?  Is  it  in  accordance  with 
t\e  genius  of  our  Government  ?  This  question  has  already  stood  the  test  of 
debate  before  the  Superior  Court  of  Cincinnati,  where  some  of  the  ablest 


ADDRESS  BY  PRESIDENT  H.  H.  GEORGE. 


55 


lawyers  of  Ohio  spent  their  strength  for  four  days.  The  Constitution  of  Ohio 
was  searched  from  preface  to  conclusion,  in  section,  paragraph,  and  clause,  to 
find  some  legal  basis  for  the  retention  of  the  Bible.  The  search  was  not  in 
vain.  It  provides  as  follows  : 

“  Religion,  morality,  and  knowledge  being  essentially  necessary  to  good  gov¬ 
ernment  and  the  happiness  of  mankind,  schools,  and  the  means  of  instruction, 
shall  be  forever  encouraged  by  legislative  provision,  not  inconsistent  with  the 
rights  of  conscience,”  etc. 

On  that  constitutional  provision  was  based  the  affirmative  decision  of  the 
question.  We  hold  the  Bible  in  the  schools  of  Ohio  because  of  the1  word 
“  religion  ”  in  our  Constitution.  But  did  the  opponents  submit  to  the  decision  ? 
By  no  means.  They  are  determined  to  carry  it  to  the  last  limit  of  law.  They 
appealed  it  to  the  Supreme  Court  of  Ohio,  where  it  now  awaits  its  trial  and 
decision  before  the  highest  tribunal  of  that  State.  We  believe  when  it  is  de¬ 
cided  there  it  must  be  in  our  favor,  because  we  have  a  constitutional  guarantee 
for  it.  But  when  this  question,  agitated  as  it  is  nowT  in  many  of  the  States, 
shall,  as  it  must  ultimately,  come  before  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United 
States,  wffiere  is  the  guarantee  ?  Where  is  the  section,  clause,  or  syllable,  that 
gives  any  more  right  to  read  the  Protestant  Bible  than  the  Koran  or  the 
writings  of  Confucius?  There  is  not  in  all  that,  in  many  respects,  noble  instru¬ 
ment  a  word  of  preference  for  the  Christian  Bible  ;  not  a  line  that  authorizes 
its  use,  or  will  protect  the  reading  of  it  in  our  schools. 

With  these  facts  before  us — the  defects  of  the  Constitution  on  the  one  hand, 
and  the  enemy  pressing  furiously  his  attack  upon  the  other — what  is  our  line  of 
duty  ?  One  of  two  things  we  must  and  will  be  compelled  to  do.  Either  give 
up  the  Bible  to  the  enemy,  yield  it  willingly,  for  logically  we  must,  or  else 
make  our  Constitution  so  that  it  will  guarantee  its  use. 

Christian  men  and  women,  which  shall  we  do  ?  Yield  our  Bible  ?  Take  it 
out  of  the  hands  of  our  children  ?  Turn  our  schools  over  into  heathenism  ? 
Blot  the  name  of  God  out  of  our  school-books  ?  Put  away  the  name  of 
Christ,  and  instead  of  Christian  substitute  Pagan  morals  ?  Are  you  ready  for 
that  ?  Men  and  women  of  Christian  America,  what  say  you  ?  I  take  the 
honest  faces  and  the  earnest  hearts  of  this  Convention  in  response.  I  take  the 
four  to  five  hundred  delegates  here,  as  the  representatives  of  a  vast  multitude 
all  over  the  land,  gathering,  growing,  swelling,  like  the  onward  tide  of  the 
ocean,  whose  voices  shall  ere  long  be  as  the  voice  of  many  waters,  when  they 
shall  come  forward  and  utter  their  demand,  “Amend,  Amend  the  Constitu¬ 
tion.” 

And  now  a  word  only  to  our  opponents,  to  the  “  liberal  ”  enemies  of  God 
and  His  Bible. 

The  Christian  features  of  our  schools,  God  helping  us,  we  mean  to  maintain. 
We  shall  suffer  the  Bible  to  be  torn  from  our  children’s  hands  and  hearts  only 
when  we  are  overpowered  and  vanquished  in  the  struggle. 

Parker  Pillsbury,  while  striving  to  excite  opposition  to  our  last  Convention 
in  Cincinnati,  expressed  his  greatest  alarm  at  the  movement,  because  amongst 
its  advocates  were  the  descendants  of  those  old  religious  heroes  who,  said  he, 
“  never  beat  upon  the  drum-head  the  hollow  sound  of  retreat.”  We  can  as¬ 
sure  Mr.  Pillsbury  and  his  confederates  that  into  the  vocabulary  of  this  move¬ 
ment  the  word  retreat  has  never  come,  and  more  than  that  it  never  shall.  We 
cannot  go  back,  and  if  we  could  God  forbid  we  ever  should.  We  believe  it  is 


56 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


the  cause  of  Gocl  and  cannot  fail.  It  has  the  almightiness  of  Christianity  in  it, 
and  shall  ere  long  prove  triumphant  as  certainly  as  that  Christianity  is  true. 

And  m  the  firm,  unwavering,  undying  faith  in  its  ultimate  triumph  we  mean 
with  God’s  help  to  press  on  ;  not  satisfied  with  its  accomplishment  in  this 
country  alone,  we  shall  contribute  our  mite  towards  its  realization  in  all  lands, 
and  shall  tell  our  children  to  tell  their  children  and  their  children’s  children 
never  to  give  up  the  struggle  until  every  knee  shall  bow,  of  things  in  heaven 
and  things  in  earth,  and  things  under  the  earth,  and  every  tongue  shall  confess 
that  Jesus  Christ  is  Lord,  to  the  Glory  of  God  the  Father. 

Adjourned  to  meet  at  7^-  o’clock  in  the  evenirtg. 


CLOSING  SESSION. 

The  Convention  re-assembled  at  7-^  o’clock,  and  was  opened  with 
prayer,  the  President  in  the  chair. 

The  Committee  on  Permanent  Organization  was  appointed  a  Com¬ 
mittee  to  nominate  officers  for  the  National  Association  for  the  en- 
suing  year. 

Dr.  Jonathan  Edwards,  of  Peoria,  Ill.,  was  introduced  and  deliv¬ 
ered  the  following  address : 

ADDRESS  OF  DR.  EDWARDS. 

Mr.  President  :  I  suppose  we  may  as  well  begin  at  the  beginning,  even  if 
somethings  be  said  which  have  been  already  said,  and  even  if  I  repeat  some 
things  which  were  said  at  former  conventions.  Repetition  is  sometimes  good. 

Even  pure  minds”  are  the  better  for  being  “  stirred  up  by  way  of  remem¬ 
brance.” 

We  have  formed  an  association  to  effect  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States.  Our  proposed  amendment  does  not  touch  to  change— 
much  less  to  abrogate— one  of  the  truths,  the  principles  or  the  features  ofUiat 
great  instrument.  Nor  does  it  imply  that  we  are  wanting  in  appreciation  of 
it;  that  we  are  dissatisfied  or  are  restless  under  its  working  hitherto  Whoever 
likes  the  Constitution  will  find  that  we  like  it,  and  the  institutions’  that  have 
grpwn  up  under  it,  in  the  same  measure  and  probably  for  the  same  good  reasons. 
He  will  find  us  joined- with  him  in  the  loyal  support  of  all  the  good  that  is  in 
it,  its  implied  assertion  of  the  rights  of  man  and  its  wise  provision  for  the 
growth  of  the  nation.  For  such  political  wisdom  given  to  our  fathers  we  de¬ 
voutly  thank  God;  and  it  is  our  conviction  and  our  boast  that  this  Constitution 
is  the  best  national  charter  recorded  on  the  pages  of  history.  But  our  fathers 
were  not  infallible,  and  the  Constitution  which  they  made  for  us  was  not  per¬ 
fect.  Our  nation’s  growth  and  experience  have  suggested  several  important 
amendments  which  have  been  already  adopted  ;  and,  as  it  seems  to  us,  the  time 
has  come  to  discuss  the  adoption  of  another.  There  are  certain  evils  and  cer¬ 
tain  signs  of  coming  evil  which  give  us  anxiety.  These  evils  and  evil  omens 
we  trace  back  to  an  omission  in  the  Constitution,  and  it  is  evident  that  if  this 
omission  be  supplied  the  evils  will  be  averted.  And  this  is  what  we  propose  to 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  EDWARDS. 


57 


clo.  Our  amendment,  like  all  the  others,  is  suggested  by  our  experience,  and, 
however  it  may  seem  to  be  late  in  the  day,  can  never  be  out  of  date.  There 
is  no  mention  of  God  in  the  Constitution,  no  word  which  recognizes  His  sover¬ 
eignty  over  human  affairs  or  His  interest  in  them.  One  of  the  great — one  of  the 
chief  characteristics  of  our  people  at  the  time  they  entered  into  national  com¬ 
pact  is  thus  ignored.  The  underlying  faith  of  our  forefathers,  a  faith  which 
must  have  given  life  and  shape  to  their  politics  and  their  institutions,  is  thus 
not  alluded  to.  I  repeat,  this  is  the  omission  which  now  engages  our  attention 
and  which  we  wish  to  supply.  We  feel  that  such  an  omission  does  injustice 
to  the  people,  who,  because  of  it,  are  but  partially  described  and  but  partially 
represented  in  their  Constitution.  It  would  seem  as  if  they  had  not  understood 
how  great  and  how  grave  was  the  work  of  nation-making  in  which  they  were 
engaged,  and  that  they  gave  to  it  only  such  earnestness  as  showed  their  desire 
for  safety,  peace  and  wealth — mere  material  interests — though  our  forefathers, 
as  we  know,  were  a  serious,  thoughtful  people,  accustomed  to  do  everything  of 
a  public  nature  in  the  name  and  the  fear  of  God ;  and  though  they  settled  the 
land  and  made  their  laws  from  the  begihningas  much  for  religious  faith  as  for 
civil  freedom,  or  rather,  for  the  freedom  of  religious  faith. 

It  has  been  thought  that  this  omission  was  mere  oversight.  Indeed,  tradi¬ 
tion  says  that  Alexander  Hamilton  told  a  minister  of  the  Gospel  in  this  city, 
on  his  return  from  the  Convention,  that  the  mention  of  God  had  been  entirely 
forgotten!  I  wonder  that  great  man  did  not  call  to  mind  the  Bible  warn¬ 
ing  to  “all  the  nations  that  forget  God.”  But  whether  they  forgot  it,  or 
whether  there  was  a  secret  intent  to  imitate  France,  the  nation  which  at 
that  day  was  the  ideal  of  political  progress  as  well  as  of  politeness  and  science, 
it  is  not  necessary,  not  important  now  to  settle.  It  is  more  important  to  cor¬ 
rect  it  than  to  account  for  it.  The  fact  is  that  the  Constitution  is  silent  on 
the  subject  of  God  and  religion,  and  we  urge  that  this  is  a  wrong,  an  injustice, 
a  vicious  impolicy. 

The  newspapers  say  we  are  trying  to  put  God  into  the  Constitution.  Well, 
that  does  describe  in  part  our  aim  and  our  work.  It  is  bad  for  anything  to  be 
without  God.  Everything  is  the  better  for  having  Him  in  it.  As  the  vener¬ 
able  father  who  addressed  you  last  evening  said,  in  words  so  fervid  and  so 
eloquent,  I  am  in  favor  of  putting  or  finding  God  everywhere;  in  the  country 
and  in  the  town,  in  the  parlor  and  in  the  workshop,  every  day  as  well  as 
Sunday.  But  there  is  also  another  thing  we  want  to  put  into  the  Constitution. 
We  want  to  put  the  people  into  it,  the  people  in  full,  the  people  with  their 
deep  and  noble  reverence  for  God  as  the  Greatest  and  the  Best,  and  for  His 
word  as  the  underlying  and  paramount  law.  In  these  traits  they  certainly  are 
not  there  now.  If  the  Convention  had  only  prefaced  the  Constitution  with 
“  In  the  name  of  God,  Amen,”  as  the  Puritans  did  in  the  colony  compact 
they  drew  up  and  signed  in  the  cabin  of  the  Mayflower,  possibly  this  move¬ 
ment  of  ours  had  never  been  made. 

Our  proposed  Amendment  is  confined  chiefly  and  almost  exclusively  to  the 
Preamble  of  the  Constitution.  We  wish  it  there  distinctly  declared  that  this 
people  found  this  Government  with  a  reverent  regard  to  God  and  His  revealed 
will.  * 

Strictly  speaking,  the  Preamble  is  not  the  Constitution.  It  is  a  solemn  state¬ 
ment  Jfiiat  goes  before  the  Constitution,  in  which  the  people  who  make  the 
Constitution  describe  themselves,  define  their  aims  and  their,  work,  and 


5$  PROCEEDINGS  OF'  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

/  « 
so,  as  it  were,  announce  and  introduce  themselves  to  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
It  is  mere  statement,  I  admit,  but  it  is  a  statement  of  facts  which  are  import¬ 
ant,  and  which  are  of  practical  value  ;  such  facts  as  furnish  a  good  point  of 
departure  for  those  who  shall  afterwards  make  or  expound  laws.  For  instance, 
the  Preamble,  as  it  now  stands,  indicates  that  the  nation  is,  as  yet,  but  imper¬ 
fectly  compacted  ;  that,  after  ten  years  of  such  life  and  progress  as  could  be 
secured  under  the  confederation,  it  is  found  necessary  “  to  form  a  more  perfect 
union  ” — intimating  that  all  after  legislation  to  weaken  or  dissolve  this  union 
will  be  unconstitutional.  This  union,  with  sundry  great  moral,  social  and 
civil  benefits  depending  upon  it,  “  the  people,”  (not  the  States,)  the  Preamble 
tells  us,  met  in  convention  to  secure,  and  to  this  end  ordained  the  Constitu¬ 
tion,  and  we  have  found  in  our  national  history  presumptions  emanating 
originally  from  this  Preamble,  working  mightily  and  continually  in  favor  of 
the  rights  of  the  people,  and  in  favor  of  national  unity,  integrity  and  eminent 
domain,  as  against  State  sovereignty,  sectional  interests,  excessive  official 
power  and  patronage,  and  the  influence  of  overgrown  corporations.  Just  here 
we  propose  to  do  our  work  ;  that,  among  these  preliminary  statements  of  the 
source  from  which  the  Constitution  emanates,  there  be  one  which  refers  to  the 
religious  convictions  under  which  our  people  acted  in  convention.  What  we 
shall  gain  by  such  a  statement  will  be  a  general  presumption  in  favor  of  Chris¬ 
tian  morals  and  usages. 

Thus  far  we  have  not  touched  the  body  of  the  Constitution.  We  have  but 
modified  the  portico,  yet  already  the  building  is  more  proportionate  and  more 
enduring  for  what  we  have  done.  There  will  follow,  for  mere  consistency’s 
sake,  one  or  two  slight  changes  in  the  Constitution,  yet  these  are  only  remote 
and  incidental,  not  at  all  essential,  and  not  interfering  with  the  rights  of  con¬ 
science  any  more  than  it  now  does. 

The  first  and  principal  change  that  occurs  to  me  as  proper  to  be  made  is  in 
the  prescribed  form  of  oath.  The  President  must  be  sworn  into  office — that 
is,  he  must  say,  “  I  do  solemnly  swear.”  This  is  now  his  oath.  Kissing  a  book 
is  a  custom,  not  a  law,  I  believe  ;  but,  whether  this  ceremony  be  custom  or 
law,  it  is  unmeaning,  undignified,  childish  and  ridiculous.  But  merely  saying 
“  I  swear  ”  is  not  swearing.  It  may  indicate  the  thing  he  would  do  if  he  could, 
but  it  is  not  the  thing  itself.  If  I  say  I  steal,  does  that  convict  me  of  theft  ? 
Does  not  the  law  require  proof  of  some  overt  act?  So  of  swearing.  There 
must  be  an  act  and  a  formula  to  constitute  an  oath,  and  for  these  we  look  into 
our  Bible.  The  right  hand  is  to  furnish  the  act :  as  it  is  said  of  base,  unworthy 
men,  “  Their  right  hand  is  a  right  hand  of  falsehood.”  And  the  name  of  God 
is  to  furnish  the  formula :  “  Thou  shalt  fear  the  Lord  thy  God  .  .  and  shalt 

swear  by  His  name.”  This  is  not  a  mere  question  of  unimportant  forms,  or  of 
trifling  details.  It  is  a  great  peace  measure,  since  “an  oath  for  confirmation 
is  an  end  of  all  strife.”  It  is  a  measure  of  high  prudence,  a  guarantee  for 
fidelity  in  administration,  in  contracts  and  in  witness  bearing.  And  it  ought 
to  be  so  constructed  as  to  form  a  sacred  bond  between  the*  conscience  of  him 
who  takes  it  and  the  Throne  of  God,  the  bar  of  final  accountability.  If  the 
oath  be  not  the  foundation  of  society,  it  is  at  least  the  cement  with  which  those 
foundations  are  laid.  • 

I  do  not  now  think  of  any  other  change  that  would  be  necessary  under  our 
Amendment  in  the  body  of  the  Constitution.  • 

But  the  Constitution  being  now  silent  upon  the  subject  of  religion,  as  has 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  EDWARDS. 


59 


been  said,  it  is  urged  against  us  that  our  movement  is  unnecessary.  The 
people  are  believers  in  God  and  Christianity,  and  the  statesmen,  at  least  the 
politicians,  will  always  be  only  too  careful  to  legislate  in  accordance  with  their 
faith  as  well  as  with  their  tastes  and  their  interests.  So,  as  you  have  already 
heard  it  well  stated,  the  people  were  believers  in  liberty,  but  for  want  of  some 
constitutional  utterance  that  was  definite  and  decisive  we  had  to  pass  through 
a  civil  war  of  frightful  porportions  ere  it  was  settled  that  freedom  was  national 
among  us.  Shall  we  wait  to  learn  in  some  similar  schooling  that  Christianity 
is  one  of  our  formal  characteristics? 

But,  in  fact,  the  Constitution  is  not  silent  upon  the  subject  of  religion.  I 
have  said  that  its  silence  was  an  injustice  and  an  evil,  but  the  great  grievance 
is  that  it  has  spoken  and  spoken  wrong.  What  you  have  given  you  in  your 
la  w  books  as  the  Constitution  is  silent,  but  this  is  not  the  whole  of  that  docu¬ 
ment.  There  are  other  chapters  of  the  Constitution  which  are  not  generally 
seen  by  the  people,  perhaps  not  even  suspected.  Treaties  made  with  foreign 
nations  are  counted  as  parts  of  the  Constitution  and  possess  the  same  power 
as  the  rest  of  the  Constitution  to  render  null  and  void  anything  contrary  to 
them  in  the  laws  or  the  constitutions  of  the  States  severally.  Now,  it  was 
stated  last  evening,  that  early  in  the  history  of  our  Government  our  diplomats 
abroad  misrepresented  us  to  a  foreign  court  by  saying  we  were  a  nation  with¬ 
out  any  religion  at  all.  But  the  case  is  far  worse  than  this.  In  one  or  two 
treaties,  which  our  President  and  Senate  made  for  us  in  due  form,  we  have 
given  to  the  world  as  fundamental  law  with  us  that  the  United  States  is  in  no 
sense  founded  upon  the  Christian  religion,  and,  in  effect,  that  our  institutions 
will  not  prove  embarrassing  to  a  good  Mussulman.  We  stand  upon  our  con¬ 
stitutional  record  as  not  materially  different  from  a  nation  of  Mohammedans. 
And  is  this  no  injustice,  no  libel  ?  It  is  both  ;  and  our  movement  for  the  Re¬ 
ligious  Amendment  indicates  that  we  are  not  disposed  to  submit  to  it. 

It  is  said,  if  you  make  these  alterations  they  will  necessarily  be  followed  by 
a  great  deal  of  legislation.  Well,  if  so,  let  us  have  it.  The  people  who  vote 
for  the  amendment  will  also  vote  the  laws  which  may  be  needed  to  give  it 
efficacy.  No  trouble,  no  disturbance  of  the  peace  need  be  apprehended.  But 
what  legislative  difficulties  are  anticipated  ?  First,  the  union  of  Church  and 
State.  Truly  this  is  a  giant  evil.  It  is  well  worth  while  to  give  warning  of 
anything  and  everything  that  threatens,  however  remotely,  to  bring  that  about, 
and  we  will  all  join  you  in  doing  so.  I  suppose  there*could  not  be  found  a  cor¬ 
poral’s  guard  in  this  large  convention  that  look  upon  such  complications  and 
corruptions  as  a  union  of  Church  and  State  would  amount  to  with  any  other 
feeling  than  detestation  and  dread.  We  all  sincerely  and  most  heartily  repudi¬ 
ate  any  design  or  desire  to  effect  it.  As  promptly  as  any  one,  we  would  both 
resent  and  resist  it.  And  yet  it  might  not  be  amiss  to  suggest  that  injurious 
relations  with  the  Church  are  not  the  only  entanglements  the  State  has  to  fear 
and  the  patient  has  to  guard  against.  China  is  a  vast  speeimen  of  a  purely 
paternal  government.  Old  Rome  identified  state  and  army,  citizen  and  soldier. 
Carthage  was  all  for  commerce.  The  French  say  that  modern  England  is  a 
nation  of  shop-keepers,  and  the  Company  of  India  combines  administration 
and  traffic.  Do  you  dislike  and  dread  state  and  family,  state  and  army,  state 
and  shop,  as  well  as  state  and,  church  ?  All  these  in  their  turn  are  dangers  to 
which  we  are  exposed,  yet  who  sounds  the  alarm,  who  prepares  the  protest, 
who  rallies  the  opposition  ?  It  is  just  possible  that  the  outcry  against  Church 


60 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


and  State  may  sprifig  rather  from  hatred  to  revealed  religion  than  from  an  in¬ 
telligent  patriotism.  But  where  is  the  sign,  the  omen  of  such  Church  and 
State  mischief  coming  upon  us  ?  Who  will  begin  and  who  will  finish  this 
union  of  Church  and  State  ?  If  you  think  the  Roman  Catholic  can  do  it  in 
spite  of  the  watchfulness  of  the  Protestant ;  or  that  one  Protestant  sect  can  do 
it  amid  the  jealousy  of  all  the  other  sects  ;  or  that  all  these  sects  would  com¬ 
bine  to  effect  a  joint  union  with  the  state,  you  have  a  notion  of  human  nature 
and  of  church  nature  different  from  what  I  have.  Church  and  State  in  union, 
then,  are  forever  impossible  here,  and,  were  it  never  so  easy,  we  all  repudiate 
it  on  principle.  There  are  enduring,  ever  valid  reasons  against  it.  But  religion 
and  state  is  another  thing.  That  is  possible.  That  is  a  good  thing — and  that 
is  what  we  aim  to  make  a  feature  in  our  institutions. 

The  languages  of  the  earth  are  taught  in  a  variety  of  grammars.  It  may  be 
useless,  if  not  impracticable  for  the  State  to  link  itself  with  a  grammar,  but  it 
will  be  worse  than  useless,  it  will  be  wholly  impossible  to  do  without  a  lan¬ 
guage.  There  are  many  languages  spokeu  in  our  great  country,  yet  here  the 
State  elects  English  to  be  its  official  tongue.  It  has  never  passed  a  law  to  this 
effect,  but  the  language  of  the  first  settlers  has  been  quietly  accepted  and  used 
until  at  length  it  has  the  general  force  of  law.  The  foreigner  may  speak  what 
tongue  he  pleases,  but  he  must  act  the  citizen  in  English,  he  must  vote  in  Eng¬ 
lish,  he  must  have  laws  drafted,  debated  and  enacted  in  English. 

There  are  many  schools  of  medicine— homeopathic,  allopathic,  hydropathic, 
and  what  not.  It  might  be  exceedingly  injudicious  for  the  State  to  commit 
itself  to  either  of  these  and  to  establish  it  exclusively ;  but  medicine,  the  heal¬ 
ing  art,  it  must  recognize,  and  from  time  to  time  employ  for  its  servants  and 
its  soldiers.  There  must  to  this  extent  be  State  and  Medicine.  ' 

In  like  manner  we  want  State  and  Religion— and  we  are  going  to  have  it. 
It  shall  be  that  so  far  as  the  affairs  of  State  require  Religion,  it  shall  be  re¬ 
vealed  Religion,  the  Religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  Christian  oath  and  Chris¬ 
tian  morality  shall  have  in  this  land  “an  undeniable  legal  basis.” 

We  use  the  word  Religion  in  its  proper  sense,  as  meaning  a  man’s  personal 
l  elation  of  faith  and  obedience  to  God.  There  is  another  use  of  the  word,  a 
narrow  ecclesiastical  use  of  it,  brought  down  to  us  from  the  Middle  Ages  and 
from  Popery.  They  said  a  man  was  religious  who  entered  into  renewed  and 
redoubled  relations  to  the  Church,  as  when  he  became  a  monk,  for  instance. 
It  is  possible  this  was  the -sense  contemplated  by  our  Constitution  when  it  pro¬ 
hibited  religious  tests  as  a  qualification  for  holding  office.  The  State  deter¬ 
mined  to  take  no  part  and  to  show  no  preference  among  the  controversies  of 
the  Church,  nor  to  make  the  Church  in  any  of  its  usages  or  requirements  a 
condition  for  her  honors  and  her  services.  But,  as  we  use  it,  Religion  is  not 
the  Church,  but  a  deep  principle,  like  life,  which  underlies  and  pervades  the 
State  and  the  family  as  well  as  the  Church.  We  hold  that  there  may  be 
religious  families  and  religious  states  as  well  as  religious  churches,  and  that 
families  and  states,  as  well  as  churches,  are  all  the  better  for  being  religious. 

Now,  we  are  warned  that  to  engraft  this  doctrine  upon  the  Constitution  will 
be  found  oppressive  ;  that  it  will  infringe  the  rights  of  conscience  ;  and  we 
are  told  that  there  are  Atheists,  Deists,  Jews  and  Seventh-day  Baptists  who 
would  be  sufferers  under  it.  I  accept  it  as  a  compliment  that  we  are  called 
upon  to  consider  objections  of  this  sort,  if  there  be  any  ground  for  them.  We 
are  the  conscience  party,  the  free  conscience  party.  We  are  the  very  people 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  EDWARDS. 


61 


to  be  held  responsible  if  we  trespass  upon  the  conscience  of  others.  And 
it  will  be  found  that  we  do  not  intend  to  do  this,  and  that  we  do  not  do  it  in 
fact. 

The  parties  whose  conscience  we  are  charged  with  troubling,  taken  alto¬ 
gether,  are  but  few  in  number.  This  determines  nothing  as  to  who  is  right, 
but  the  fact  remains,  and  is  worthy  of  note,  that,  taken  altogether,  they  amount 
to  but  a  small  fraction  of  our  citizenship.  They  are  not  even  as  many  as  those 
among  us  who  do  not  speak  the  English  language. 

And  then,  further,  they  are  almost  wholly  of  foreign  importation,  and  that 
of  comparatively  recent  date,  so  that  they  did  not  share  in  the  first  settlement 
of  this  country  ;  they  did  not  brave  the  hardships,  they  did  not  profess  the 
principles  which  have  made  that  settlement  memorable.  They  never,  any¬ 
where,  developed,  or  even  dreamed  of  such  a  nationality  as  ours,  such  a  writ¬ 
ten  guarantee  for  stability,  liberty  and  progress.  In  the  lands  where  they 
lived  before  coming  hither,  they  had  less  of  liberty  than  they  enjoy  here,  but 
their  notions  of  conscience  and  liberty  were  too  vague  for  them  even  to  feel 
themselves  aggrieved.  They  breathed  no  protests,  they  suffered,  no  martyr¬ 
dom.  These  come  to  us,  who  have  made  for  them  the  freest  land  ever  beneath 
the  sun,  and  warn  us  not  to  infringe  their  rights  of  conscience — rights  which 
they  had  to  come  here  even  to  learn  !  They  are  afraid  that  those  who  taught 
them  freedom  are  going  to  oppress  them  ! 

Well,  let  us  attend  to  the  case.  They  do  not,  as  yet,  feel  oppressed.  They 
will  not  pretend  that,  on  the  whole,  they  are  not  very  well  off — better  off  than 
before  they  came— as  well  off  as  they  expected  to  be.  Under  our  present  Con¬ 
stitution  and  laws  they  can  vote,  can  hold  property,  can  marry,  can  plead  and 
be  impleaded,  can  fare  better  than  in  any  other  country.  But  they  cannot  do 
everything,  have  everything,  be  everything.  Well,  in  this  thej'-  are  not  alone. 
There  are  many  rights  and  privileges  which  are  but  imperfectly  accorded  to 
all  our  citizens.  There  are  many  things  which  we  may  not  do,  however  con¬ 
science  clear  we  may  be  of  our  right,  our  interest,  or  our  pleasure  in  them. 
We  may  not  smoke  a  cigar  in  the  streets  of  Boston.*  We  may  not  buy  a  lot 
among  the  fine  houses  of  Broadway,  or  the  fashionable  avenues  of  New  York, 
and  there  set  up  and  operate  a  foundery,  a  tin-shop,  a  bone-boiling  establish¬ 
ment  or  a  soap  chandlery.  If  we  try  it  we  shall  find  both  ourselves  and  our 
business  treated  as  a  nuisance.  People  do  not  like  the  smoke,  the  noise,  the 
fumes  of  such  establishments.  The  majority  are  against  you,  and  in  this* 
country  and  all  republics  majorities  govern.  To  be  in  a  minority  involves 
more  or  less  of  inconvenience.  In  business,  in  politics,  in  fashion,  in  morals 
and  in  religion,  whoever  differs  materially  from  the  majority  will  certainly  be 
made  to  feel  it  more  or  less  in  due  time.  All  law,  all  government,  will  press 
somewhere  occasionally,  and  it  is  the  good  citizen  who  maintains  both  his  con¬ 
science  and  his  independence  by  submitting  to  the  pressure.  Our  objectors, 
as  I  said,  are  not  alone  in  their  disabilities. 

One  class  of  our  earliest  and  best  citizens  is  composed  of  Quakers,  who  are 
in  name  and  in  principle  opposed  to  all  war.  It  is  doubtful  whether  a  Quaker 
can,  with  a  good  conscience,  be  President  of  the  United  States  and  thus  be  Com- 
mander-in-Chief  of  the  Army  and  Navy.  Yet  the  majority  of  our  people  thus 
far  remain  firm  in  the  purpose  to  keep  an  army  and  navy,  and,  what  is  more, 


*  Such  was  the  law  not  long  since  enforced  in  Boston. 


62 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


on  occasion  to  use  them.  There  is  also  another  body  of  our  citizens  of  good 
stock  and  well  ordered  lives  and  sound  principles,  men  who  in  other  lands 
were  identified  with  freedom  of  conscience — we  heard  from  them  this  morn¬ 
ing,  the  Covenanters — who  in  this  land  do  not  feel  themselves  at  liberty  even 
to  vote.  And  some  of  our  countrymen  are  conscientious  monarchists.  The 
State  protects  all  who  are  peaceable,  but  it  cannot  do  otherwise  than  reflect 
the  mind  of  the  majority.  Our  objectors,  then,  may  learn  that  they  are  merely 
a  body  of  men  who  are  in  their  turn  feeling  the  inconvenience  of  dissent.  And 
they  may  be  reminded  that  under  our  proposed  Amendment  all  the  essentials 
of  their  citizenship  will  be  none  the  less  secure  to  them  than  they  are  now. 

The  Atheist  is  a  man  who  denies  the  being  of  a  God  and  a  future  life.  To 
him  mind  and  matter  are  the  same,  and  time  is  the  be-all  and  the  end-all  of 
consciousness  and  of  character. 

The  Deist  admits  God,  but  denies  that  He  has  any  such  personal  control 
over  human  affairs  as  we  call  providence,  or  that  He  ever  manifests  Himself 
and  His  will  in  a  Revelation. 

The  Jew  admits  God,  Providence,  and  Revelation,  but  rejects  the  entire 
scheme  of  Gospel  redemption  by  Jesus  Christ  as  sheer  imagination,  or — worse 
— sheer  imposture. 

'The  Seventh-day  Baptists  believe  in  God  and  Christianity,  and  are  conjoined 
with  the  other  members  of  this  class  by  the  accident  of  differing  with  the  mass 
of  Christians  upon  the  question  of  what  precise  day  of  the  week  shall  be  ob¬ 
served  as  holy. 

These  all  are,  for  the  occasion,  and  so  far  as  our  Amendment  is  concerned,  one 
class.  They  use  the  same  arguments  and  the  same  tactics  against  us.  They 
must  be  counted  together,  which  we  very  much  regret,  but  which  we  cannot 
help.  The  first  named  is  the  leader  in  the  discontent  and  in  the  outcry — the 
atheist,  to  whom  nothing  is  higher  or  more  sacred  than  man,  and  nothing  sur¬ 
vives  the  tomb.  It  is  his  class.  Its  labors  are  almost  wholly  in  his  interest ;  its 
success  would  be  almost  wholly  his  triiftnph.  The  rest  are’  adjuncts  to  him  in 
this  contest.  They  must  be  named  from  him ;  they  must  be  treated  as,  for 
this  question,  one  party.  Now  look  at  it — look  at  this  controversy.  The  ques¬ 
tion  is  not  between  opinions  that  differ,  but  opinions  that  are  opposite,  that 
are  contradictory,  that  mutually  exclude  each  other.  It  is, between  Christianity 
and  Infidelity.  It  is  between  Theism  and  Atheism,  between  the  acknowledg¬ 
ment  of  a  God  and  the  denial  that  there  is  any  God.  We  cannot  too  seriously 
ponder  this,  since  the  rights  of  conscience  are  held  to  be  involved.  The  atheist 
does  not  believe  in  the  soul ;  he  denies  that  there  is  any  such  thing  As  con¬ 
science  ;  yet  he  comes  to  those  who  confess  both  to  insist  upon  his  rights  of 
conscience  !  I  have  a  few  plain,  earnest  words  about  all  this. 

I  do  not  believe  that  every  man  is  an  atheist  who  says  he  is  one.  I  dis¬ 
tinguish  between  minds  that. doubt  or  deny  the  existence  of  God,  and  those 
who  doubt  or  deny  the  sufficiency  of  the  logic  usually  employed  to 
prove  it.  And  I  love  to  think  genuine  atheism  impossible  to  the  human 
soul.  But  now  bring  forward  your  atheist,  your  man  who  confesses  to  neither 
God,  angel,  nor  spirit,  your  man  who  believes  in  all  unbelief,  and  in  nothing 
else,  and  I  know  at  once  what  his  position  is.  His  religion  is  irreligion;  his 
morals  are  only  natural  morals— the  morals  of  the  body,  the  animal  in  man, 
which,  in  his  view,  is  all  there  is  of  man.  His  speculations  do  not  rove  or 
float  among  the  dreams  of  philosophy,  but  they  run  into  the  concrete  forms  of 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  EDWARDS. 


63 


politics— into  the  platforms  of  parties  and  the  enactments  of  legislatures. 
Atheism  is  always  political.  What  are  the  rights  of  the  atheist  ?  I  would 
tolerate  him  as  I  would  tolerate  a  poor  lunatic,  for  in  my  view  his  mind  is 
scarcely  sound.  So  long  as  he  does  not  rave,  so  long  as  he  is  not  dangerous 
I  would  tolerate  him.  I  would  tolerate  him  as  I  would  a  conspirator.  The 
atheist  is  a  dangerous  man.  He  not  only  rejects  and  opposes  my  faith,  but 
he  aims  to  overturn  every  institution,  and  to  dissolve  every  relationship  grow¬ 
ing  out  of  my  faith.  He  would  destroy  the  very  foundations,  pull  down 
everything,  and  build  up  nothing.  But  he  shall  be  tolerated.  He  may  live 
and  go  free,  hold  his  lands  and  enjoy  his  home,  he  may  even  vote,  but  for  any 
higher,  more  advanced  citizenship,  he  is,  as  I  hold,  utterly  disqualified.  And 
we  are  aiming,  not  to  increase,  but  to  render  definite  his  disqualification; 
to  give  to  our  Government  and  all  our  "free  institutions  a  guar¬ 
antee  that  he  shall  never  have  control  over  them.  Yes,  to  this 
extent  I  will  tolerate  the  atheist,  but  no  more.  Why  should  I  ? 
The  atheist  does  not  tolerate  me.  He  does  not  smile  either  in 
pity  or  in  scorn  upon  my  faith.  He  hates  my  faith,  and  he  hates  me  for  my 
faith.  He  is  bent  on  exterminating  me  and  my  faith  altogether.  “Crush  the 
wretch  !”  said  Voltaire  of  my  Saviour  and  His  cause.  And  this  is  still  the 
atheist’s  motto  and  his  aim.  I  have  received  letters  and  tracts  which  show 
this  very  clearly.  Were  I  to  read  to  you  the  shocking  blasphemies,  the  words 
of  hate  and  of  murder  which  they  contain,  you  would  shudder  in  horror.  He 
means  to  make  all  these  words  good  among  us  as  soon  as  he  can.  And  I  am 
asked  to  accord  rights  of  conscience  to  a  man  who  says  to  me,  “  Come,  let  me 
show  you  how  I  can  use  the  knife  with  which  I  purpose  one  day  to  cut  your 
throat.”  “Come,  let  me  explain  to  you  the  force  of  some  nitro-glycerine 
which  I  have  prepared  to  blow  you  up  !”  I  can  be  as  calm  and  as  willing  in 
the  one  case  as  in  the  other.  And  I  am  asked  to  tolerate  the  atheist’s  creed 
under  peril  of  violating  the  rights  of  conscience.  And  this  tolerating  of  athe¬ 
ism  means,  I  suppose,  that  our  Constitution  and  laws  shall  be  so  framed  as  to 
imply  that  there  is  as  much  of  truth,  probability  and  good  in  atheism  as  in 
Christianity  !  Tolerate  atheism  in  this  sense,  sir  ?  Never,  never  !  We  know 
what  atheism  is,  and  what  atheism  does.  We  know  what  it  builds,  and  how 
it  operates  with  its  “  Natural  Morals,”  its  “  Death  an  Eternal  Sleep,”  its  “  Lib¬ 
erty,  Equality,  Fraternity.”  Twice,  at  least,  in  the  world’s  history  has  it  shown 
what  it  is  capable  of  doing.  Twice  across  the  plains  of  gay  and  sunny  France 
has  it  driven  its  car  of  progress,  and  the  whole  track  has  been  rapine,  and 
blasphemy,  and  blood.  I  can  tolerate  difference  and  discussion  ;  I  can  tolerate 
heresy  and  false  religion  ;  I  can  debate  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  our  common 
schools  ;  the  taxation  of  church  property,  the  propriety  of  chaplaincies  and 
the  like,  but  there  are  some  questions  past  .debate.  Tolerate  atheism,  sir  ? 
There  is  nothing  out  of  hell  that  I  would  not  tolerate  as  soon.  The  atheist 
may  live,  as  I  said,  but,  God  helping  us,  the  taint  of  his  destructive  creed 
shall  not  defile  any  of  the  civil  institutions  of  all  this  fair  land  !  Let  us 
repeat,  atheism  and  Christianity  are  contradictory  terms.  They  are  incom¬ 
patible  systems.  They  cannot  dwell  together  on  the  same  continent..  And 
let  us  note  that  this  atheism  among  us  is  busy.  It  is  aggressive,  with  societies, 
with  organs,  with  agents  ;  with  their  papers  and  their  preachers.  But  re¬ 
cently  they  have  imported  a  man,  the  papers  say,  at  a  salary  of  $15,000,  to  go 
through  the  land  lecturing  and  organizing,  telling  us  how  to  Germanize  and 


64 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


un-Americanize  our  country.  Their  organizations  raise  money,  issue  publi¬ 
cations,  form  public  sentiment  and  secure  votes  against  our  Sunday  laws,  our 
blasphemy  laws,  our  temperance  laws,  our  cruelty  laws,  our  laws  for  social 
purity  and  home  sanctity,  our  oath-sealed  guaranty  for  truth  and  fidelity, 
and  to  bring  us  all  down  to  mere  natural  morals.  We  too  must  organize 
and  make  effort.  “The  Lord  of  Hosts  is  with  us,  the  God  of  Jacob  is  our 
refuge  !’.’ 

Another  anticipated  difficulty  which  is  urged  against  us  is  to  determine  what 
Bible  to  recognize.  This  difficulty  is  but  imaginary.  There  is  but  one  Bible. 
What  is  called  the  Catholic  or  the  Protestant  Bible  is  but  the  Catholic  or  the 
Protestant  version  of  the  one  original  Bible.  And  with  every  strong  convic¬ 
tion  that  the  Protestant  version  is  the  better  one,  I  am  free  to  say  that  any 
Bible  is  better  than  no  Bible. 

And  yet  another  objection  is  that  the  laws  of  Moses  will  have  to  be  re-enacted 
and  enforced  among  us,  and  that  these  laws  are  not  at  all  fitted  to  our  times, 
our  freedom,  our  civilization.  I  confess  that  I  am  not  at  all  afraid  of  Moses. 
I  find  among  his  institutions  the  germs  of  our  own  glorious  Republic,  and  the 
provisions  and  the  spirit  of  our  best  laws.  But  the  objectors  do  not  seem  to 
have  read  the  Bible  enough  to  see  what  a  self-interpreting  book  it  is.  It  records 
a  prophecy  and  afterwards  records  its  fulfilment.  It  records  a  promise  and 
afterwards  states  when  and  how  the  bestowment  was  effected.  It  records  a 
ritual  and  afterwards  records  what  abrogated  it  and  took  its  place.  It  gives 
of  itself  the  clue  to  distinguish  what  is  of  enduring  value  and  moral  obligation 
from  what  is  local,  typical,  transitory.  Now,  if  there ’be  anything  in  the  laws 
of  Moses  which  the  coming  of  Christ  and  the  subsequent  overthrow  of  Judaism 
did  not  abrogate,  let  them  be  pointed  out — there  cannot  be  many  of  them — 
and  we  are  prepared  to  accept  them  and  have  them  re-enacted. 

Thus  much  as  to  objections  and  objectors. 

As  to  our  movement  and  our  National  Association,  I  have  to  say  : 

1.  That  it  is  most  catholic.  It  is  a  matter  of  general  interest.  It  equally 
concerns  Democrat  and  Republican,  Catholic  and  Protestant,  Unitarian  and 
Trinitarian.  I  do  not  say  that  all  these  are  actually,  as  yet,  combined  in  it ; 
but  all  might  be  thus  combined  without  any  compromise  of  what  is  distinctive 
among  them,  and  I  trust  that  ere  long  they  will  be.  No  broader  platform  was 
ever  erected  in  American  politics. 

2.  It  is  a  practical  measure.  It  is  no  dream  of  mere  enthusiasts  or  fanatics. 
It  does  not  aim  simply  to  nationalize  some  shibboleth  of  some  sect.  It  presents 
not  a  question  of  words,  but  of  underlying  comprehensive  principles.  If  these 
can  in  due  form  be  secured,  it  seems  to  us  that  the  foundations  of  our  nation’s 
character  will  be  secured,  the  law  of  our  nation’s  beneficent  and  unending 
progress  will  be  secured. 

3.  It  is  an  essential  measure.  It  is  as  essential  as  the  Oath  is  essential,  as 
Christian  morals  are  essential,  as  Christianity  is  essential.  It  will  not  do  to 
say,  we  had  better  leave  things  as  they  now  are.  Things  are  in  a  state  of 
change,  of  transition  ;  they  will  not  stay  as  they  now  are.  It  will  not  do  to  say, 
let  us  trust  the  voice  of  a  Christian  people  for  the  perpetuity  of  Christian  prin¬ 
ciples  and  usages  among  us;  for,  in  despite  of  their  voice  and  their  influence, 
the  moulding,  over-riding  force  of  our  national  Constitution  has  more  and 
more  eliminated  the  notion  of  God  and  of  moral  character  from  our  recent 
State  Constitutions  and  from  the  decisions  of  our  courts.  If  we  do  not  carry 


ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  SLOANE. 


65 


this  measure,  we  take  the  side  of  atheism.  You  are  called  upon,  fellow-citizens, 
to  make  your  election  between  Christianity  and  Atheism.  “Under  which 
king,  Bezonian  ?”  You  cannot  be  too  soon  in  making  your  response.  I  cannot 
doubt  what  your  decision  will  be. 

Our  movement  means  business.  We  are,  as  yet,  possibly  not  perfect  in  all 
the  details  of  our  great  measure.  We  are  willing  to  receive  suggestions  from 
our  friends.  We  are  willing  to  gather  hints  even  from  our  enemies.  But  we 
mean  to  carry  this  measure  if  it  takes  all  that  ten  generations  you  heard  men¬ 
tioned  last  evening.  Our  faith  is  in  God,  in  His  word  and  in  the  co-operation 
of  all  good  men.  • 

I  believe  I  have  thus  touched  upon  as  many  points  as  I  dare  without  the  fear 
of  trespassing  upon  your  long  patience. 


The  following  address  was  next  delivered  by  Professor  J.  R. 
W.  Sloane,  D.  D.,  of  Alleghany,  Pa. 

ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  J.  R.  W.  SLOANE. 

The  object  which  has  assembled  this  Convention  is  one  whose  importance  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  exaggerate.  The  open,  distinct  and  avowed  purpose 
of  the  “  National  Reform  Association  ”  is  to  secure  such  an  amendment  to  the 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  as  shall  furnish  a  legal  basis  for  legislation 
upon  those  elements  of  our  national  life  that  are  specifically  Christian  ;  such, 
for  example,  as  Christian  marriage  ;  the  Sabbath  as  a  day  of  rest  for  the 
laboring  man,  and  of  peaceful  worship  for  the  religious  man  ;  the  Bible  in  the 
schools  ;  the  judicial  oath  in  our  courts  of  justice  ;  chaplains  in  our  army, 
navy,  and  public  institutions  under  the  control  of  Government ;  special  days 
of  fasting  and  thanksgiving,  etc. 

That  a  free  people  should  be  somewhat  sensitive  respecting  changes  in  their 
Constitution  is  at  once  natural  and  proper.  The  Constitution  represents  stable 
government,  and  stable  government  is  essential  to  .national  prosperity  and  pro¬ 
gress.  It  is  not  desirable  that  frequent  changes  should  be  made  in  the  National 
Charter.  Nevertheless,  the  Constitution  of  a  free  Government  not  only  may, 
but  must,  from  time  to  time,  be  altered  and  amended  according  to  the  varying 
and  progressive  changes  of  the  national  life  ;  otherwise  it  will  prove  a  barrier 
to  national  progress,  and  eventually  provoke  resistance  and  revolution.  Plant 
an  oak  in  a  vase,  and  either  the  vase  will  kill  the  oak,  or  the  oak  will  burst  the 
vase.  The  garments  of  the  boy  of  fifteen  will  not  do  for  the  muscular,  devel¬ 
oped  man  of  twenty -five.  The  Constitution  framed  for  the  thirteen  colonies 
before  the  steamship,  the  locomotive,  or  the  telegraph  had  appeared,  will  not 
meet  the  requirements  of  our  nation  to-day,  into  which  so  many  new  forces, 
both  moral  and  physical,  have  entered.  The  only  appropriate  question  which 
can  be  asked  is,  as  to  the  importance,  necessity  and  practicability  of  the  proposed 
amendment.  If  it  meet  some  great  felt  and  conscious  necessity  of  the  nation, 
if  it  be  clearly  foreseen  that  its  adoption  will  be  productive  of  beneficent  results, 
then  it  is  at  once  the  dictate,  both  of  reason  and  of  statesmanship,  that  it  be  ac¬ 
cepted.  That  such  an  emergency  has  arisen  is  the  profound  conviction  of  many 
of  the  most  thoughtful  minds  of  the  country.  Our  fathers  designed  to  found 
here  a  great,  free  and  Christian  republic.  We  have  made  it  free  from  ocean 


66 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


to  ocean,  from  the  Lakes  to  the  Gulf ;  and  we  are  now  resolved,  with  the  divine 
assistance,  to  secure  its  Christian  features  against  all  the  disorganizing  forces 
which  assail  them,  and  give  them  the  guarantee  of  a  specific  declaration  in  the 
National  Constitution.  There  is  no  one  element  of  the  national  life  distinct¬ 
ively  Christian  which  is  not  assailed,  nor  one  which  is  not  called  in  question, 
and  the  right  and  reason  of  its  existence  under  the  Constitution  denied.  These 
assaults,  .taken  in  connection  with  the  alarming  corruption  in  political  life, 
have  created  a  deep  and  wide-spread  concern  for  the  stability  of  our  Govern¬ 
ment.  The  right  to  read  the  Bible  in  the  public  schools  is  appealed  to  the 
higher  courts  in  the  State  of  Ohio.  The  same  right  is  denied  to  the  schools  of 
New  York  by  the  decision  of  the  State  Superintendent.  Sabbath  laws  are 
either  abrogated  or  rapidly  becoming  a  dead  letter  on  the  statute  book.  The 
abrogation  of  the  judicial  oath  in  our  courts  of  justice  is  loudly  urged,  and  all 
this  pressed  on  the  ground  of  constitutional  right.  The  conflict  is  upon  us  ; 
the  issue  is  made.  The  necessity  for  making  constitutional  provision  against 
infidel  demands  is  as  urgent  as  it  was  a  few  years  ago  for  making  such  pro¬ 
vision  against  slavery.  The  view  which  we  urge  upon  this  subject  is  no  new 
thing.  Five  years  after  the  adoption  of  the  present  Constitution,  Rev.  Dr. 
John  Mason,  of  this  city — perhaps  the  greatest  pulpit  orator  of  America,  the 
intimate  friend  and  eulogist  of  Alexander  Hamilton,  according  to  the*  state¬ 
ment  of  his  son  to  the  present  speaker,  the  most  prominent  of  the  framers  of 
the  Constitution— used  these  words  :  “  Should  the  citizens  of  America  be  as 
irreligious  as  her  Constitution,  we  have  reason  to  fear  lest  the  Governor  of 
the  Universe,  who  will  not  be  treated  with  indignity  by  a  people  anymore  than 
by  individuals,  overturn  from  the  foundation  the  fabric  we  have  been  rearing, 
and  crush  us  to  atoms  in  the  wreck.” 

It  is  proper,  also,  to  remark  that  .this  movement  rests  upon  the  profoundest 
principles  of  political  philosophy,  as  well  as  upon  the  pure  precepts  of  Chris¬ 
tian  morality,  and  is,  therefore,  thoroughly  logical  and  consistent  with  itself. 

That  government  is  a  divine,  and  not  a  human  institution,  is  affirmed  by 
all  political  Writers  whose  opinion  is  of  any  value  upon  the  subject.  To 
name  them  is  to  name  all  those  who  have  obtained  eminence  in  political  sci¬ 
ence  in  our  own  country  :  Lieber,  late  of  Columbia  College  ;  Tayler  Lewis,  of 
Union  ;  Prof.  Seelye,  of  Amherst,  the  scholar  and  thinker  of  New  England  ; 
Mulford,  the  author  of  that  able  political  work,  “  The  Nation  O.  A.  Brown- 
son,  author  of  “  The  American  Republic,”  not  to  mention  others  of  equal 
ability  on  these  subjects,  some  of  whom  are  with  us  in  this  Convention. 

Governments  are  not  made  ;  they  grow.  They  are  not  of  man,  nor  of  the 
will  of  man,  but  of  God.  They  arise  under  the  operation  of  God’s  providen¬ 
tial  laws,  and  are  created  as  moral  persons  for  the  accomplishment  of  moral 
ends.  “  The  nation  is  not  a  confused  collection  of  separate  atoms,  as  grains 
of  sand  in  a  heap,  and  its  increase  is  not  through  their  accumulation.  It  has 
the  unity  of  an  organism,  not  the  aggregation  of  a  mass.” 

If  Government  be  not  divine,  then  it  is  merely  a  voluntary  association,  and 
may  be  dissolved  like  other  voluntary  associations,  at  the  will  of  those  who 
are  thus  united  ;  but  this  theory  would  subvert  society  and  lead  to  anarchy. 

The  experiment  of  the  erratic  Thoreau,  had  it  been  successful,  would  have 
proved  him  stronger  than  Massachusetts,  stronger  than  the  United  States  ; 
would  have  proved  the  same  as  to  every  other  individual  under  the  Govern¬ 
ment,  and,  of  course,  would  have  subverted  its  very  foundation. 


ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  SLOANE. 


67 


We  are  bora  under  government — live,  act  our  little  part,  and  die  under  it. 
We  have  no  choice  in  the  matter.  We  can  no  more  escape  from  it  than  from 
the  blue  heavens  above  us.  With  reverence  it  may  be  said  of  government,  as 
of  its  Author  :  “  If  I  take  the  wings  of  the  morning  and  dwell  in  the  utter¬ 

most  parts  of  the  sea,  even  there  shall  Thy  hand  lead  me,  and  Thy  right  hand 
hold  me.”  There  is  no  divine  right  of  kings.  There  are  no  providential 
rulers  supernaturally  raised  up  to  govern.  There  is,  however,  a  divine  right  of 
government  ;  it  is  of  God  through  the  people.  Hence,  rulers  are  accountable 
both  to  God  and  the  people.  When  properly  understood,  “  vox  populi,  vox 
Dei”  is  the  embodiment  of  a  political  truth.  This  view  of  government  is  the 
only  one  that  has  the  slightest  claim  to  be  considered  philosophical  and  scien¬ 
tific,  and  makes  our  demand  for  a  recognition  of  God  in  the  Constitution  not 
merely  reasonable,  but  logical  and  necessary.  The  sciolists  who  have  been  in 
such  eager  haste  to  throw  themselves  in  the  path  of  this  movement,  have 
never  made  even  an  attempt  at  argument  on  fundamental  principles.  They 
are  wise.  Every  other  view  of  government  is  unscientific,  disorganizing,  an¬ 
archical  and  despotic.  We  embrace  the  opportunity  to  say  to  these  gentle¬ 
men  that  platitudes  about  Puritanism,  Jewish  Theocracy,  union  of  Church 
and  State,  religious  persecution,  &c.,  are  arrows  that  fall  harmless  at  our  feet. 
A  cause  like  this,  resting  on  fundamental  principles,  is  not  to  be  arrested  by 
such  feeble  weapons.  We  take  their  sneers  and  bind  them  as  a  wreath  of 
honoi1  around  our  brows.  As  to  their  opinions  which  they  utter  so  oracularly, 
I  would  that  they  understood  how  little  we  regard  them. 

Not  a  few  journals  which  betray  their  utter  ignorance  of  the  principles  of 
political  philosophy,  treat  the  arguments  for  this  movement  with  combined 
flippancy  and  arrogance.  And  the  “New  York  Independent!  ”  I  have  seen 
somewhere  a  story  of  a  poor  animal,  on  which  a  cruel  devotee  of  science 
had  been  experimenting,  that  continued  to  wriggle  for  some  three  days  after 
the  brains  were  taken  out  of  it.  The  brains.were  taken  out  of  the  Independent 
some  two  or  three  years  ago,  but  it  wriggles  yet. 

Again,  governments  are  the  subjects  of  God’s  immutable  laws,  whether  they 
ackowledge  the  fact  or  not.  Their  unbelief  cannot  make  void  the  purpose  of 
God.  The  government  is  not  the  people,  nor  the  people  the  government, 
although  the  one  is  not  without  the  other.  There  is  one  law  for  the  individual, 
and  another  for  the  government — a  judgment  of  the  individual  and  a  judg¬ 
ment  of  the  nation.  As  moral  persons,  they  are  the  subjects,  of  God’s  moral 
laws.  There  is  no  future  state  of  rewards  and  punishment  for  nations;  hence 
they  receive  their  doom  or  their  chastisement  in  this  world.  Rome  advanced 
her  conquests  until  she  embraced  the  civilized  world.  Her  victorious  eagffes 
hovered  over  the  finest  portions  of  three-quarters  of  the  globe.  She  fell,  not 
because  of  any  dark  or  fatal  necessity  compelling  the  rise  and  fall  of  empires, 
but  because  of  her  own  crimes.  The  huge  and  bloated  carcass  was  rotten  at 
the  heart  ;  barbarous  invasion  but  completed  what  internal  corruption  had 
begun.  The  Goth,  the  Vandal  and  the  Hun  thundered  at  her  gates.  Her 
pomp,  her  glory  and  her  multitudes  went  down  to  the  dust.  God’s  laws  were 
violated,  and  God’s  ministers  of  vengeance  executed  upon  her  the  penalty. 
We  need  not  go  to  the  nations  of  antiquity  for  our  examples. 

But  a  few  years  have  passed  since  we  were,  as  a  nation,  the  subject  of  one  of 
‘the  most  severe  national  chastisements  that  has  befallen  any  nation  of  modern 
times.  We  were  in  the  full  tide  of  national  prosperity,  as  men  judge  na- 


68  PROCEEDINGS  OP  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tional  prosperity;  but  there  was  a  gross  national  sin  resting  upon  us.  Sud¬ 
denly  the  clouds  of  confusion  gathered  over  us;  the  Lord  God  thundered  in 
the  heavens,  and  there  the  Highest  gave  his  voice,  hailstones  and  coals  of 
fire  ;  He  sent  out  his  lightnings,  and  smote  us  ;  He  lifted  up  the  waves  of 
His  wrath,  and  rolled  them  upon  us.  The  land  trembled  beneath  the  shock 
of  contending  armies,  and  the  earth  drank  in  the  blood  of  the  slain.  When 
“  those  war-clouds  rolling  dun”  had  passed  away,  three  billions  of  treasure 
had  perished ;  a  million  lives  had  been  sacrificed ;  there  was  not  a  house  in 
which  there  was  not  one  dead ;  the  land  was  filled  with  a  very  great  mourning, 
as  the  mourning  of  Hadad  Rimmon  in  the  Valley  of  Megiddon — Rachel 
weeping  for  her  children,  and  refusing  to  be  comforted.  Can  history  furnish 
a  more  striking  illustration  of  the  punishment  of  a  nation,  coming  directly 
from  the  hand  of  God  for  the  violation  of  His  law  ?  There  is  nothing  in  this 
supernatural — nothing  miraculous.  It  all  occurs  in  accordance  with  the  ope¬ 
ration  of  laws  which  God  has  established.  “  Facilis  descensus  Averni ,”  is 
true  of  a  nation.  “  Ephraim  is  joined  to  his  idols,  let  him  alone.” 

Again,  in  the  conduct  of  its  policy,  whether  that  policy  relate  to  its  own 
citizens,  or  to  its  relation  to  other  nations,  a  nation  is  as  much  under  obliga¬ 
tion  to  obey  the  law  of  God  as  the  humblest  of  its  citizens,  We  have  had  a 
policy  toward  the  Indian  in  the  past.  That  policy  we  all  admit  to  have  been 
in  many  respects  unjust.  We  have  another  policy  at  present — a  policy  of 
which  our  esteemed  Chairman  is  an  honored  agent.  This  policy  is  distinctively 
Christian.  The  present  results  are  several  expensive  Indian  wars  avoided, 
with  their  attendant  waste  of  blood  and  treasure.  We  have  had  a  policy 
toward  the  negro  ;  a  policy  toward  nations  with  whom  we  have  been  brought 
into  various  relations;  a  policy  toward  the  Mormons;  a  policy  toward  the 
Chinaman,  &c.  What  is  the  standard  of  national  conduct  in  all  these  in¬ 
stances  ?  Is  our  own  will  the  rule,  or  is  there  a  higher  law  by  which  we 
should  be  governed,  and  by  which  we  will  be  tried  ?  To  ask  these  questions 
is  to  answer  them.  No  thoroughly  informed  person  will  deny  that  a  nation  is 
a  moral  person.  Great  Britain  and  the  United  States  meet  in  arbitration ; 
the  question  between  them  is  one  of  rights  ;  an  appeal  to  a  standard  must  be 
made ;  that  standard  is  the  “  Law  of  Nations,”  but  of  this  law  it  may  indeed 
be  said  that  “  it  hath  its  seat  in  the  bosom  of  God,  and  its  voice  is  the  harmony 
of  the  world.”  The  ‘‘Law  of  Nations”  is  an  expression  of  the  divine  justice, 
and  rests  ultimately  upon  the  revealed  will  of  God.  The  recognition  on  the 
part  of  a  nation  of  its  subordination  to  the  law  of  God  is  the  recognition  sim¬ 
ply  of  a  demonstrated,  accepted  political  truth. 

'there  is  no  point  upon  which  even  intelligent  persons  appear  to  be  more 
confused  than  upon  the  true  end  of  government.  The  prevalent  opinion  is 
that  government  is  simply  a  device  for  the  preservation  and  furtherance  of 
material  interests.  Jefferson’s  view  was  that  its  end  was  to  prevent  pockets 
being  picked  and  legs  from  being  broken  ;  or,  as  it  is  more  philosophically 
expressed,  for  the  protection  of  life  and  property.  We  heard  that  eminent 
philanthropist,  Gerritt  Smith,  when  running  as  independent  candidate  for  the 
governorship  of  the  State  of  New  York,  say  in  this  hall  that  government  was 
simply  the  watch-dog  lying  at  the  door  of  the  citizen  to  protect  his  property. 
An  astute  lawyer  rose  in  the  audience,  and  asked  him  what  then  was  his 
opinion  of  the  Public  School  system  of  the  State,  and  he  was  compelled  to 
answer  that  he  did  not  believe  education  properly  a  function  of  government ! 


ADDRESS  OF  PROFESSOR  SLOANE. 


69 


A  moment’s  reflection  is  sufficient  to  convince  any  one  both  of  the  fallacy 
and  inadequacy  of  such  views.  Formed  in  the  moral  sphere  of  the  divine 
government,  civil  government  must  deal  with  the  higher  principles  of  human 
nature  and  with  the  higher  interests  of  society.  The  family  is  formed  accord¬ 
ing  to  its  conception  of  the  true  character  of  that  relation.  The  relation  of 
parent  and  child  is  controlled  and  regulated  by  its  laws.  Every  right,  whether 
of  property  or  of  conscience,  is  secured  or  destroyed  by  its  arrangement.  Is 
there  any  interest  of  man  which  it  does  not  affect  ?  Any  department  of 
human  action  with  which  it  does  not  directly  or  indirectly  interfere  ?  Who¬ 
ever  reflects  upon  it  aright  will  be  ready  to  say  with  Arnold  of  Rugby,  that  it  is 
monstrous  that  such  a  power  should  recognize  no  authority  higher  than  itself. 

This  is  a  sufficient  answer  to  the  question  so  often  asked,  why  a  government 

£ 

should  acknowledge  God  rather  than  a  bank,  railroad,  or  other  corporation. 
Government  is  supreme.  “  Diis  immortalibus  proximi  sunt  magistratus .” 
There  is  no  other  power  to  interfere  between  it  and  the  people.  It  would  be 
eminently  fitting  that  corporations  of  every  kind  should  acknowledge  God. 
The  current  maxim  that  governments  have  no  souls  indicates  the  corrupt 
sentiment  that  originates  fraudulent  “rings”  and  “corners.”  These  corpo¬ 
rations,  howrever,  are,  as  Blackstone  says,  merely  “  artificial  persons ;  ”  they 
are  limited  to  merely  pecuniary  interests,  are  subject  to  the  sovereign  power, 
and  can  be  made  or  dissolved  according  to  its  pleasure.  The  government, 
however,  is  a  different  agent  altogether ;  it  knows  no  power  higher  than 
itself  ;  it  controls  all,  and  is  controlled  by  none.  “  Whom  it  will  it  kills, 
and  whom  it  will  it  keeps  alive.”  No  power  can  interfere  between  it  and  the 
subject;  its  sentence  is  final  and,  save  by  itself,  irreversible.  For  this  reason, 
government, by  a  majority  recognizing  no  allegiance  to  God  is  a  despotism  as 
dangerous  and  as  absolute  as  that  of  the  purest  autocracy  the  world  has  ever 
seen.  On  my  way  to  this  Convention  I  asked  an  eminent  lawyer,  a  member 
of  the  Pennsylvania  Constitutional  Convention,  “  Why  do  you  punish  bigamy 
in  Pennsylvania  ?  ”  “  Because  it  is  a  crime — a  malum  in  se”  “  According  to 
what  law  ?  ”  “  Of  course,”  he  replied,  “  the  law  of  God  as  revealed  in  Chris¬ 

tianity.”  This  is  the  precise  truth.  Why  not,  then,  acknowledge  the  law  by 
which  our  legislation  is  and  must  be  governed?  A  friend  to  whom  I  put 
the  same  question  replied,  that  it  should  be  punished  for  the  good  of  society. 
But  who  is  to  judge?  In  Mohammedan  countries  polygamy  prevails,  not  in 
their  estimation  a  malum ,  but  a  bonum  in  se — a  useful  institution  necessary  to 
the  good,  perhaps  the  very  existence,  of  society !  Is  it  not  plain  that  our 
legislation  proceeds  on  principles  purely  Christian — that  to  deny  this  fact,  or 
to  act  on  the  denial,  would  subvert  modern  society  ?  Thus  it  is  manifest  that 
this  movement  is  not  only  theoretical,  resting  upon  fundamental  principles, 
but  eminently  practical  The  law  of  marriage  makes  all  the  difference 
between  Western  and  Oriental  civilization.  Polygamy,  as  an  institution, 
rests  in  Mohammedan  countries  upon  the  Koran;  but  in  Christian  countries, 
upon  the  rule  of  Christ,  “  They  twain  shall  be  one  flesh.”  If  our  Government 
is  to  know  no  distinction  of  religion,  why  shall  we  discriminate  against  the 
Mormon  or  Mohammedan  on  a  principle  which  his  religion  does  not  forbid, 
nay,  into  which  it  enters  as  an  essential  element  ?  To  deny  that  we  have  a 
right  to  legislate  on  Christian  principles  is  to  deny  a  principle  upon  which  our 
legislatures  and  courts  are  acting  every  day.  The  theory  which  we  oppose, 
if  logically  carried  out,  w'ould  reduce  men  to  a  herd,  and  society  to  the  wildest 
anarchy. 


TO  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

We  are  justly  proud  of  our  liberties  ;  but  whence  have  they  come  ?  From 
an  ancestry  thoroughly  imbued  with  Christianity,  men  who  shed  their  blood 
like  water  to  secure  the  right  to  read  the  Word  of  God,  and  to  worship  Him 
according  to  its  requirements.  “  O  Liberty,  what  crimes  have  been  committed 
in  thy  name !”  said  Madame  Roland,  as  from  the  scaffold  she  raised  her  hands 
to  Heaven.  Let  us  remember  that  these  crimes  have  been  committed  in  the 
name  of  infidel  liberty — not  of  a  liberty  regulated  by  the  law  of  Christ. 
The  open  Bible,  Pere  Hyacinthe  affirms  to  be  the  secret  of  the  power 
and  glory  of  America  and  Britain.  Every  step  of  progress  which  a  nation 
makes  is  by  taking  up  some  Christian  principle  into  the  national  life. 
French  communism  is  the  ideal  of  those  who  stand  in  the  front  ranks  of 
our  opponents — a  horror  which  so  alarms  the  French  people  of  to-day  that 
they  willingly  submit  to  almost  any  governmSnt  which  gives  them  security 
against  its  atrocities.  The  more  a  nation  has  of  Christianity  the  freer  it  be¬ 
comes,  is  a  fact  which  admits  of  no  exception  since  the  days  of  Christ ;  and 
yet  one  would  think,  to  hear  certain  newspapers  talk,  that  it  was  of  all  other 
things  to  be  dreaded  and  shunned.  A  decade  will  not  in  all  probability  pass 
until  it  will  be  seen  that  this  contest  is  a  struggle  for  civil  and  religious  liberty 
against  atheism  and  infidelity,  those  dire  foes  not  only  of  God,  but  of  man.  I 
do  not  wish  to  exaggerate  the  evils  of  the  hour.  A  great  calamity  has  fallen 
upon  us.  We  hang  our  heads  with  shame.  Is  there  no  remedy  ?  Is  there  no 
balm  in  Gilead  ?  Is  there  no  physician  there  ?  Are  not  the  leaves  of  the  tree 
of  life  for  the  healing  of  this  nation?  I  am  aware  that  men  say,  “Look  at 
your  Christian  Statesmen  !  ”  That  some  of  those  implicated  in  these  recent 
disgraceful  transactions  have  made  some  sort  of  Cnristian  profession  is  cur¬ 
rently  reported  ;  that  they  were  among  the  most  trusted  of  our  public  men  all 
admit.  When  I  was  in  Chicago,  after  the  great  conflagration,  I  saw  how  the 
apparently  strongest  and  most  durable  structures  had  melted  like  wax  in  that 
awful  furnace  ; — those  that  remained  standing,  crumbled  and  defaced  as 
though  smitten  by  all  the  storms  of  ruin  for  a  thousand  years.  What  must 
have  been  the  intensity  of  that  conflagration  in  which  they  perished  ?  When 
we  see  men  go  down  like  those  whose  names  for  very  pity  we  cannot  mention, 
we  may  infer  how  great  the  temptation  to  which  they  have  been  exposed,  and 
find  an  additional  argument  for  the  necessity  of  applying  a  radical  remedy  to 
the  existing  state  of  politics  in  our  country.  There  is  no  charm  in  words,  but 
there  is  omnipotence  in  principles.  Our  amendment  would  elevate  govern¬ 
ment  into  the  sphere  of  a  high  moral  duty,  and  remove  it  from  the  domain 
now  occupied  by  the  stock  exchange  and  the  speculators’  “corner.”  Its  ten¬ 
dency  must  be  to  raise  up  a  class  of  public  men  influenced  by  moral  considera¬ 
tions,  and  accepting  office  as  a  duty  to  be  discharged,  rather  than  as  a  door  of 
admission  to  an  opportunity  for  the  accumulation  of  boundless  personal 
wealth. 

What  other  remedy  is  proposed  that  has  not  again  and  again  been  tried  and 
failed  ?  Is  it  not  time  to  make  one  earnest  and  united  effort  to  infuse  a  new 
power  into  government,  that  may  transform  politics  from  a  reckless  game  into 
a  sacred  trust  ? 

There  are  other  questions  of  a  more  immediately  practical  character  pressing 
themselves  upon  us  at  this  very  moment,  and  from  which  there  is  no  escape. 
Is  President  Grant  to  succeed  in  his  effort  to  abolish  polygamy  in  Utah  ?  Are 
we  to  fold  our  hands  and  tamely  submit  to  the  expulsion  of  the  Bible  from  all 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  MILLIGAN. 


n 


our  schools  ?  Shall  the  oath  be  banished  from  our  courts  of  justice  ?  Shall  we 
resist  and  antagonize  in  all  lawful  ways  the  open,  determined  and  diabolical 
effort  now  made  to  destroy  every  Christian  element  which  yet  remains  in  our 
Government,  and  by  constitutional  enactments  secure  them  to  us  and  our  pos¬ 
terity  forever,  while  we  lay  the  foundation  for  still  further  progress  in  the 
same  direction  ? 

Of  all  questions  these  are  the  most  practical,  as  they  are  the  ones  which 
press  themselves  with  the  greatest  urgency  upon  our  immediate  consideration. 
That  we  shall  succeed  in  carrying  this  amendment,  does  not  admit  of  doubt. 
The  ablest  thinkers  of  the  nation  are  with  us.  As  a  question  of  talent,  the  weight 
is  upon  our  side.  The  great  majority  of  the  best  people  of  the  nation  are 
with  us.  They  only  need  to  be  awakened  to  the  importance  of  the  issues 
which  are  made,  and  they  will  rise  as  the  waves  of  the  ocean  when  the  storm 
descends  upon  it,  and  whelm  beneath  the  tide  of  Christian  sentiment,  the 
audacious  demands  of  an  impious  and  alien  atheism.  This  place  calls  up  strange 
recollections.  I  have  stood  on  this  platform  when  this  hall  was  filled  with  a 
raging,  howling,  blaspheming,  pro-slavery  mob,  whose  violence  it  took  one 
hundred  policemen,  with  the  Chief  of  the  Police  at  their  head,  to  restrain;  and 
in  less  than  two  years  the  streets  of  this  city  echoed  to  the  strains  of  splendid 
regiments  armed  against  slavery,  kindled  to  the  white  heat  of  a  burning  patri¬ 
otism,  as  they  sang — 

“  John  Brown’s  body  lies  a  mouldering  in  the  grave  ; 

His  soul  is  marching  on.” 

God  is  with  us;  it  is  His  prerogative  to  work  with  many  or  with  few.  It  is 
not  for  us  to  know  the  times  or  the  seasons  which  the  Father  hath  put  in  His 
own  power.  We  will  succeed,  whether  in  the  near  or  the  distant  future.  The 
mouth  of  the  Lord  hath  spoken  it.  The  kingdoms  of  this  world  shall  become 
the  kingdoms  of  our  Lord  and  of  his  Christ. 


The  Rev.  Dr.  A.  M.  Milligan,  of  Pittsburg,  was  introduced  by  the 
President,  and  spoke  as  follows : 

ADDRESS  OF  DR.  A.  M.  MILLIGAN. 

Mr.  President  :  Our  attention  has  been  called  to  a  defect  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion — its  omission  of  any  express  recognition  of  the  authority  of  God  over  the 
nation.  Such  an  omission  is  certainly  a  very  serious  defect  in  an  instrument 
which  proposes  to  define  the  relations  of  the  Government  to  all  parties  to 
which  it  stands  related  ;  a  defect  which  all  sensible  men,  who  seek  to  have 
their  government  enjoy  amicable  relations  to  the  Supreme  Ruler  of  the  uni-  * 
verse,  would  desire  to  have  speedily  remedied.  Still,  such  omission  may 
easily  seem  to  have  been  an  oversight— a  thing  taken  for  granted,  or  so  well 
understood,  that  it  needed  no  expression  in  that  instrument  ;  that  it  even  now 
does  not  need  to  be  inserted,  being  universally  accepted.  Hence,  what  need 
of  this  agitation?  what  need  of  another  amendment? 

Permit  me,  Mr.  President,  to  call  attention  to  something  more  than  a  mere 
defect,  or  failure  to  express  in  the  Constitution  a  recognition  of  the  divine 
authority  over  the  nation.  There  is  a  virtual  denial — a  principle  taught  which 


72  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

is  at  variance  with  the  doctrine  of  the  divine  authority  over  the  nation.  Theic 
are  two  opposite  theories  as  to  the  source  or  origin  of  authority  and  power  in 
government.  The  first  is,  that  God  is  its  author ;  that  the  power  to  set  up 
and  administer  government  is  from  Him  ;  that  the  revealed  will  of  God  is  the 
rule  by  which  this  divine  ordinance  should  be  constituted;  that  the  magistrate 
is  the  minister  of  God ;  and  that  to  resist  government  so  constituted  and 
administered  is  to  resist  God  and  incur  His  wrath.  This  is  the  Christian 
theory,  the  teaching  of  the  Bible,  and  accepted  by  the  greatest  statesmen  and 
teachers  of  political  science  in  ancient  and  modern  times. 

The  other  theory  was  first  proclaimed  by  Hobbes,  the  celebrated  English 
infidel,  accepted  by  the  infidel  school  of  France,  and  taught  in  the  French 
Encyclopaedia.  It  proclaims  that  government  is  a  mere  human  institution— a 
social  compact — deriving  all  its  authority  from  the  consent  ot  the  governed, 
and  having  no  higher  law  than  the  will  ot  the  people  constitutionally  ex¬ 
pressed  ;  that  the  magistrate  is  the  mere  servant  of  the  people,  having  no 
higher  obligation  than  to  fulfill  the  will  of  his  constituents,  and  responsible 
only  to  them. 

This  is  designated  the  infidel  theory.  The  one  of  these  is  the  principle 
lying  at  the  foundation  of  a  Christian  state,  the  other  of  an  infidel  state.  This 
latter  theory  was  boldly  enunciated  by  the  French  National  Assembly,  when, 
at  the  close  of  the  last  century,  they  set  up  an  infidel  republic,  emblazoning 
on  their  banner  the  motto  “  There  is  no  God,”  and  investing  with  divine  honors 
“  Reason”  as  their  goddess. 

This  same  theory  of  government  is  obscurely,  but  really  and  effectively, 
taught  in  our  national  Constitution.  True,  that  'instrument  does  not  declare 
“  There  is  no  God”  nor  does  it  declare  that  human  governments  are  not  under 
divine  authority.  Such  declarations  would  never  have  been  accepted  by  the 
Christian  people  of  this  nation.  Had  such  declarations  appeared  in  that  in¬ 
strument,  they  would  have  raised  such  a  storm  as  would  have  swept  out  of 
political  existence  the  men  who  had  offered  the  insult  to  our  Christianity,  and 
their  names  would  have  gone  down  with  that  of  Thomas  Paine  to  perpetual 
infamy.  No  ;  the  infidel  element  which  participated  in  the  framing  of  that 
instrument  had  not  the  courage  to  hazard  such  an  experiment. 

Come  with  me  to  the  Constitution,  and  let.  us  see  what  it  teaches  on  this 
question.  The  first  declaration  referring  to  this  is  in  the  preamble:  “We,  the 
people  of  the  United  States,”  *  *  *  “  do  ordain  and  establish  this  Constitu¬ 
tion.”  There  is  here  no  allusion  to  any  authority  above  “  the  people,”  under 
whose  auspices,  by  whose  permission,  for  whose  glory,  or  in  whatever  relation 
to  whom  “  We,  the  people”  set  up,  in  God’s  great  empire,  the  Government  ot 
the  United  States.  The  inference  plainly  is,  that  the  people  create  the  gov¬ 
ernment  of  themselves  and  for  themselves,  with  no  relations  to  any  higher 
power.  What  would  the  Government  ot  the  United  States  think  if  a  com¬ 
munity  of  people  were  to  set  up  a  government  in  one  of  our  territories  without 
ever  saying,  “  By  your  leave  ?  ” 

One  sentence  recognizing  the  Divine  authority  would  free  the  preamble 
from  this  charge  ;  as  it  is,  it  may  fairly  be  taken  as  the  expression  of  the 
“  social  compact,”  or  infidel  theory  of  government,  and,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  it 
is  by  multitudes  of  Christian  people,  as  well  as  infidels,  construed  to  mean 
nothing  else. 

Add  to  this  the  declaration  of  the  Sixth  Article,  that  “  this  Constitution  and 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  MILLIGAN. 


73 


the  laws  made  in  pursuance  thereof,  shall  be  the  supreme  law  of  the  land,”  and 
that  “  all  executive  and  judicial  officers,  both  of  the  United  States  and  of  the 
several  States,  shall  be  bound  by  oath  or  affirmation  to  support  this  Constitu¬ 
tion;  but  no  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required  as  a  qualification  for  any  office 
and  what  have  we  ?  A  Constitution,  ordained  by  the  people  without  any 
acknowledgment  of  the  authority  of  the  Almighty ;  and  then,  lest  some  one 
should  plead  that  still  it  is  to  be  understood  that  God  is  over  all,  it  is  added  : 
No  religious  test  shall  ever  be  required ;  not  sectarian,  denominational,  or 
ecclesiastical  test,  but  religious  test.  What  does  this  mean?  What  is  the 
meaning  of  religion  ?  Webster’s  first  definition  is,  “  The  recognition  of  God  as 
an  object  of  worship,  love  and  obedience .”  Let’us  apply  this.  No  recognition 
of  God  as  an  object  of  obedience  shall  be  required  as  a  qualification  for  office, 
but  only  an  oath  to  support  this  Constitution — the  expressed  will  of  the  people. 
Add  to  all  this,  the  fact  that  the  name  of  God  and  all  reference  to  His  judg¬ 
ment  is  left  out  of  the  oath  provided  in  the  Constitution  for  the  President, 
and  administered  to  all  officers,  State  and  national,  and  we  have  in'  the  Con¬ 
stitution  a  complete  illustration  of  the  theory  of  “  No  God  in  Government.” 
As  I  have  already  stated,  this  is  not  openly  expressed,  but  covertly  disguised 
under  the  flattering  idea  that  all  power  is  in  the  hands  of  the  people. 

Now,  the  question  recurs,  granting  that  this  is  so :  What  importance 
attaches  to  it?  What  harm  can  come  from  it  ?  To  this,  I  reply : 

First. — It  places  the  nation  in  the  attitude  of  professing  a  principle  that  is  at 
variance  with  the  truth,  and  with  the  sentiment  of  the  nation.  Is  that  a  desir¬ 
able  position  in  which  to  stand  before  the  world,  proclaiming  a  falsehood 
which  we  know  and  believe  to  be  such  ? 

Mr.  President,  this  nation  believes  there  is  a  God,  and  that  He  is  the  Su¬ 
preme  Ruler  of  nations.  The  nation  has  proclaimed  this  in  her  Declaration 
of  Independence,  Articles  of  Confederation,  and  in  her  State  Constitutions,  and 
in  a  thousand  other  ways  ;  and  yet  in  our  Constitution  we  turn  our  back  upon 
our  history,  and  by  our  criminal  silence  give  the  lie  to  all  our  other  professions. 
Is  not  this  a  humiliating  attitude  for  a  great  Christian  nation  to  occupy  ?  Shall 
we  occupy  this  position  because  an  infinitesimal  minority  of  the  people  demand 
it  ?  Shall  the  Constitution  of  the  nation  express  the  truth  believed  by  the 
great  Christian  majority  of  the  nation,  or  shall  it  endorse  a  falsehood  proposed 
by  a  handful  of  infidels  in  it  ? 

Second. — The  Constitution  is  a  great  educator.  Regarded  as  expressing  the 
combined  wisdom  of  the  nation,  it  is  looked  up  to  as  authority.  Our  ideas  of 
right  and  wrong  are  largely  derived  from  law.  Whatever  is  law  we  are  in¬ 
clined  to  regard  as  right.  The  Constitution  is  the  supreme  law  of  the  land, 
towering  above  State  laws  and  constitutions  and  acts  of  Congress.  It  is  the 
test  to  which  all  laws  must  be  brought.  It  is  the  highest  and  most  authorita¬ 
tive  legal  teacher  in  the  land.  Now,  if  this  instrument  teaches  that  no  obedi¬ 
ence  or  subjection  is  due  from  the  nation  or  its  rulers  to  God — that  the  magis¬ 
trate,  as  such,  is  under  no  obligation  to  God,  and  owes  no  obedience  to  his  law — 
what  must  be  the  consequence  ?  Take  away  the  fear  of  God,  and  where  will 
be  our  honesty,  fidelity,  incorruptibility  ?  What  restraint  is  left  that  cannot 
easily  be  evaded?  What  security  has  society  against  the  most  wholesale  rob¬ 
bery,  bribery,  and  every  other  malfeasance  in  office  ?  The  theory  that  “  politics 
has  nothing  to  do  with  religion,”  is  but  the  echo  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  lies 
at  the  bottom  of  all  the  corruption  that  has  entered  into  our  political  system. 


74  PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Men  who  do  not  believe  the  theory  will  practice  according  to  it  so  long  as  it  is 
constitutional  and  suits  their  purposes.  If,  then,  we  do  not  wish  to  educate 
and  raise  up  a  nation  of  political  infidels  and  atheists,  let  us  amend  our  text¬ 
book,  and  teach  through  our  Constitution  that  the  nation  and  its  rulers  are 
amenable  to  God  and  His  law,  and  let  the  national  conscience  be  educated  in 
the  true  principles  of  national  prosperity  and  security. 

Third. — It  exerts  a  malign  influence  upon  other  nations.  The  nations  of  the 
Old  World  are  struggling  up  toward  republican  liberty.  They  look  to  this 
nation  as  their  model  and  guide.  And  when  they  study  our  institutions  to 
ascertain  the  secret  of  our  prosperity,  they  go  to  our  Constitution,  and  the 
result  is  that  the  Commune  of  'Paris,  the  Turners  of  Germany,  and  the  Inter¬ 
nationals  of  Europe,  point  to  us  as  an  infidel  nation,  prove  their  assertion  by 
the  Constitution,  and  attribute  our  liberty  and  prosperity  to  our  infidelity. 
What  a  dangerous  mistake  !  Like  a  false  signal  on  a  stormy,  rock-reefed  sea  ! 
How  many  nations  may  make  shipwreck,  and  attribute  their  ruin  to  the  false 
light  hung  out  at  our  mast-head  ?  No  one  who  knows  our  history,  and  the 
secret  of  our  prosperity,  can  doubt  that  the  mightiest  force  in  our  nation,  and 
that  which  has  conduced  most  to  our  success,  is  our  Christianity.  Take  that 
away,  and  you  leave  Hamlet  out  of  the  play.  Let  us  tell  the  struggling  nations, 
when  they  ask  for  the  way  that  led  us  to  our  present  proud  position,  that  it  was 
the  covenant  made  with  God  in  the  cabin  of  the  Mayflower,  and  our  fathers’ 
faith  in  God,  that  led  us  hither. 

The  Fourth  evil  arising  from  the  present  attitude  of  the  Constitution  is  that 
it  leaves  us  no  legal  basis  for  the  Christian  features  of  our  Government. 

As  I  have  already  remarked,  Christianity  forms  an  essential  element  of  our 
nationality,  and  enters  into  all  the  features  of  our  governmental  character. 
Our  Christian  Sabbath  ;  our  chaplains  in  Congress,  army,  prisons,  etc.  ;  our 
Bible  in  the  schools ;  our  marriage  laws ;  our  fasts  and  thanksgivings ;  our 
judicial  oath  ;  our  system  of  morality,  are  all  distinctively  Christian.  These 
have  grown  up  with  us,  and  are  a  part  of  our  national  life.  But  there  is  no 
authority  for  them  in  the  Constitution  ;  on  the  other  hand,  they  are  contrary  to 
the  very  theory  of  government  of  which  that  instrument  is  the  expouent — the 
theory  which  forbids  the  nation,  as  such,  to  have  to  do  with  religion.  -Is  it 
not  having  to  do  with  religion  to  place  legal  restraints  upon  the  desecration  of 
the  Christian  Sabbath  ;  to  teach  the  Christian’s  Bible  to  the  nation’s  children 
in  the  public  schools  ;  to  appoint  Christian  ministers  to  preach  the  gospel  to 
the  National  Congress,  to  the  army  and  navy  ?  Is  it  not  having  to  do  with  re¬ 
ligion  to  require  the  magistrate  and  the  witness  to  qualify  by  an  oath  taken  in 
the  name  of  the  Christian’s  God,  or  on  the  Gospels  ;  or  to  call  the  nation  to 
worship  God  in  exercises  of  prayer  and  thanksgiving  ?  Is  it  not  restraining  the 
free  exercise  of  his  religion  to  prevent  the  Mormon’s  enjoyment  of  his  polygamy, 
or  arrest  him  in  the  administration  of  the  highest  censure  of  his  church — the 
“  Blood  Atonement  ” — by  the  Danite’s  dagger  ?  In  all  these,  and  many  other  re¬ 
spects,  the  conduct  of  the  nation  is  inconsistent  with  the  spirit  and  letter  of  its 
Constitution.  This  may  have  been  a  matter  of  comparatively  little  consequence, 
as  long  as  all  were  agreed,  and  there  was  none  to  call  in  question  these  acts  or 
their  constitutionality  ;  but  now  that  an  earnest  and  able  body  of  men  have 
united  and  organized  themselves,  with  the  declared  purpose  of  sweeping  every 
trace  of  Christianity  from  our  national  life— it  becomes  a  matter  of  the  highest 
consequence  on  which  side  of  this  great  controversy  the  Constitution  stands  ; 


ADDRESS  OF  DR.  MILLIGAN. 


75 


and  if  it  be  against  us,  we  are  left  the  alternative  either  to  give  up  our  Chris¬ 
tianity  or  amend  our  Constitution. 

My  Fifth  and  last  reason  for  seeking  a  change  of  the  Constitution  in  this  par¬ 
ticular,  is  that  as  it  is,  it  is  a  standing  insult  offered  by  the  nation  to  its  God — 
the  author  of  its  existence  and  prosperity.  We  have  virtually  said  in  that 
instrument  which  is  the  highest  expression  of  the  nation’s  will  :  “  Our  lips  are 
our  own  :  who  is  Lord  over  us  ?  ” 

Why  has  not  God  smitten  us  as  he  did  infidel  France  ?  There  is  but  one 
reason  ;  the  insult  was  not  understood,  nor  intended  by  the  nation.  The  at¬ 
tention  of  the  nation  has  never  until  recently  been  called  to  the  matter,  and 
even  yet  many  Christian  men  will  hardly  consent  to  such  an  interpretation. 
But  now  the  question  is  forced  to  an  issue,  and  we  must  settle  it — we  can  no 
longer  occupy  an  attitude  of  neutrality  or  inaction.  Like  Pontius  Pilate  wre 
have  a  person  on  our  hands,  and  like  him  we  may  ask,  “  What  shall  I  do  with 
Jesus  who  is  called  Christ  ?”  We  must  either  crucify  or  crown  him  ;  and  like 
the  Jewish  nation  our  decision  will  seal  our  future  destiny.  Either  like  them 
we  will  reject  him  and  perish,  or,  becoming  a  kingdom  of  our  Lord  and  His 
Christ,  we  shall  fill  the  earth  and  endure  forever. 

During  our  recent  struggle  to  save  the  nation’s  life  from  the  assault  of  a 
terrible  rebellion,  the  Senate  of  the  United  States  requested  President  Lincoln 
to  call  the  nation  to  fasting,  humiliation  and  prayer,  that  “  God  for  Christ’s 
sake  would  save  the  nation.”  That  prayer  was  heard  and  answered,  and  the 
nation  saved  ;  and  ever  since  we  have  had  our  yearly  thanksgiving  at  the  call 
of  the  President  to  render  thanks  to  God  for  the  mercies  of  the  year.  Is  this 
consistent  ?  Shall  we  ask  national  favors  from  One  whose  being  or  authority 
we  are  unwilling  to  recognize  in  the  National  Constitution?  Jefferson  refused 
to  proclaim  a  fast  in  time  of  trial  on  this  very  ground,  and  said  :  “  I  believe 
the  Government  of  the  United  States  is  interdicted  by  the  Constitution  from 
interfering  with  religious  institutions.”  What  claim  have  wTe  on  Christ  to 
save  or  bless  us,  unless  we  recognize  His  authority  over  us  ?  Protection  and 
allegiance  are  correlates,  and  we  cannot  claim  the  one  unless  we  render  the 
other.  On  the  other  hand,  subjects  refusing  allegiance  expose  themselves  to 
the  wrath  of  their  Sovereign. 

And  now  the  infidel  junto  have  proclaimed  their  determination  that  all 
these  national  acts  of  religion  shall  cease,  and  they  make  their  demand  on 
constitutional  grounds.  Their  position  is  consistent,  and  we  are  left  the 
alternative  either  to  conform  our  Constitution  to  our  practice  or  lapse  into 
atheism.  The  issue  is  fairly  joined;  the  lines  are  clearly  drawn,  and  the 
respective  parties  are  ranging  themselves  under  their  respective  banners. 
The  demands  of  liberalism  “that  all  laws  looking  to  the  enforcement  of 
Christian  morality  shall  be  abrogated,”  and  every  vestige  of  Christianity 
swept  out  of  the  Government,  present  one  side  of  the  question.  Our  Amend¬ 
ment  is  the  other.  When  this  contest  is  over,  there  will  be  no  longer  room' 
for  the  plea  of  ignorance  or  forgetfulness  on  the  part  of  the  people;  there 
will  be  no  indefiniteness  in  the  letter  of  the  Constitution.  The  nation  will 
stand  squarely  on  the  one  side  or  the  other — either  Christian  in  Constitution 
as  well  as  character,  or  infidel  in  character  as  well  as  Constitution.  Our  rela¬ 
tions  to  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  will  be  well  defined,  and  we  will  as  a  nation 
either  crown  or  crucify  him.  Viewed  in  this  light  the  issue  is  momentous. 
The  hour  is  freighted  with  destiny.  This  great  nation,  standing  on  an  ele- 


76 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 

* 

vated  platform  in  the  presence  of  the  civilized  world,  is  about  to  recognize  its 
King  and  crown  him,  or  to  renounce  all  allegiance  and  crucify  him. 


The  Committee  on  Permanent  Organization  reported  the  follow¬ 
ing  officers  of  the  National  Association  for  the  coming  year,  who 
were  elected  amid  loud  applause : 

President  : 

The  Hon.  FELIX  R  BRUNO  T. 

Vice-Presidents  : 

His  Excellency,  James  M.  Harvey,  Governor  of  Kansas. 

The  Hon.  J.  W.  McClurg,  Ex-Governor  of  Missouri. 

The  Hon.  W.  H.  Cumback,  Lieutenant- Governor  of  Indiana. 

The  Hon.  Lorenzo  Sawyer,  U.  S.  Circuit  Court ,  San  Francisco ,  Gal. 

The  Hon.  G.  W.  Brooks,  U.  S.  District  Court ,  North  Carolina. 

The  Hon.  M.  B.  Hagans,  Superior  Court  of  Cincinnati. 

The  Hon.  J.  Rockwell,  Superior  Court  of  Massachusetts. 

The  Hon.  Ellis  A.  Apgar,  State  Sup't  of  Public  Instruction,  N.  J. 

The  Hon.  Daniel  B.  Briggs,  State  Sup't  of  Public  Instruction ,  Mich. 

The  Hon.  Alonzo  Abernethy,  State  Sup't  of  Public  Instruction ,  Iowa. 

The  Hon.  A.  N.  Fisher,  State  Sup' t  of  Public  Instruction ,  Nevada. 

The  Hon.  Josiah  JL  Drummond,  LL.  D.,  Portland,  Maine. 

John  Alexander,  Esq.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Charles  G.  Nazro,  Esq.,  Boston ,  Mass. 

The  Hon.  Thomas  W.  Bicknell,  Commissioner  of  Public  Schools,  R.  I. 

James  W.  Taylor,  Esq. ,  Neicburg,  N.  Y. 

Prof.  Tayler  Lewis,  LL.D.,  Union  College ,  N.  Y. 

The  Right  Rev.  John  B.  Kerfoot,  D.D.,  Bishop  Prot.  Ep.  Church,  Diocese  of 
Pittsburg. 

The  Rev.  T.  L.  Cuyler,  D.D. ,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

The  Rev.  Levi  Scott,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  Delaware. 

Prof.  Julius  H.  Seel  ye,  D.D.,  Amherst  College ,  Mass. 

The  Right  Rev.  F.  D.  Huntington,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Ep.  Church, 
Diocese  of  Central  New  York. 

The  Right  Rev.  C.  P.  McIlvane,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  D.C.L.,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Ep. 
Church,  Diocese  of  Ohio. 

The  Rev.  A.  A.  Miner,  D.D.,  President  of  Tuft's  College,  Mass. 

The  Rev.  Jonathan  Edwards,  D.D.,  Peoria,  III. 

The  Rev.  Edmund  S.  Janes,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  New  York. 
The  Rev.  Henry  J.  Fox,  D.D.,  Charleston,  S.  C. 

The  Right  Rev.  W.  M.  Green,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Ep.  Church,  Diocese 
of  Mississippi. 

Vice-Chancellor  J.  Gorgas,  University  of  the  South,  Tenn. 

President  William  Carey  Crane,  D.D.,  Baylor  University,  Texas. 

The  Right  Rev.  G.  T.  Bedell,  D.D.,  Assist.  Bishop  of  Prot.  Ep.  Church,  Ohio. 
The  Right  Rev.  G.  D.  Cummins,  D.D.,  Assist.  Bishop  of  the  Prot.  Ep.  Church, 
Diocese  of  Kentucky. 


OFFICERS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION. 


77 


The  Rev.  C.  S.  Finney,  D.D.,  Formerly  President  of  Oberlin  College ,  Oberlin, 
Ohio. 

The  Rev.  T.  A.  Morris,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  Springfield ,  0. 

The  Rev.  J.  H.  McIlvai^e,  D.D.,  Newark ,  N.  J. 

The  Rev.  M.  Simpson,  D.D.,  Bishop  of  the  M.  E.  Church,  Pa. 

The  Rev.  J.  Blanchard,  D.D.,  President  of  Wheaton  College ,  III. 

Prof.  O.  N.  Stoddard,  LL.D.,  Wooster  University,  Ohio. 

Prof.  J.  R.  W.  Sloane,  D.D.,  Ref.  Presb.  Then.  Seminary,  Allegheny,  Pa. 

The  Rev.  E.  R.  Craven,  D.D.,  Newark,  N.  J. 

The  Rev.  Jos.  Cummings,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  Wesleyan  University , 
Middletown,  Conn. 

The  Rev.  Stephen  H.  Tyng,  D.D.,  New  York. 

The  Rev.  F.  Merrick,  D.D.,  LL.D.,  President  of  the  Ohio  University,  Delaware, 
Ohio. 

The  Rev.  A.  D.  Mayo,  D.D.,  Springfield,  Mass. 

The  Rev.  John  B.  Dales,  D.D.,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

The  Rev.  Joseph  T.  Cooper,  D.D.,  Pittsburg,  Pa. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  J.  Banvard,  Paterson,  N.  J. 

The  Rev.  C.  H.  Edgar,  D.D.,  Easton,  Pa. 

The  Rev.  William  Hast,  D.D.,  Editor  of  German  Publications  of  the  M.  E. 
Church,  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

The  Rev.  John  S.  Stone,  D.D.,  Epis.  Theo.  School ,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

The  Rev.  H.  Dyer,  D.D.,  Corresponding  Sec.  of  Evang.  Knowl.  Society,  N.  Y. 
The  Rev.  Thomas  Sproull,  D.D.,  Ref.  Presb.  Theo.  Seminary ,  Allegheny,  Pa. 
President  W.  F.  King,  D.D.,  Cornell  College,  Iowa. 

President  James  W.  Strong,  D.D.,  Carleton  College,  Minn. 

President  Thomas  Holmes,  D.D. ,  Union  Christian  College,  Ind. 

General  Secretary  : 

The  Rev.  D.  McAllister,  410  West  Forty-third  Street ,  New  York. 
Corresponding  Secretary  : 

The  Rev.  T.  P.  Stevenson,  38  North  Sixteenth  Street ,  Philadelphia. 

Recording  Secretary  : 

The  Rev.  W.  W.  Barr,  Philadelphia. 

Treasurer  : 

Samuel  Agnew,  Esq.,  1126  Arch  Street,  Philadelphia. 

Executive  Committee  : 

The  Secretaries  and  Treasurer  of  the  Association,  ex-officio. 

R.  B.  Sterling, . Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Joshua  Cowpland, .  “ 

John  Alexander, . •„  “ 

Jas.  S.  Martin, .  “ 

The  Rev.  S.  O.  Wylie,  D.D., . “ 

Robert  Taylor, .  “ 

Wm.  McKnight, . “ 

Thos.  Walker, .  “ 

Thos.  Brown, . “ 


78 


PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION. 


Henry  Harrison, . ]Sfew  York. 

Robert  B.  Maxwell, . « 

William  Neely, .  « 

Walter  T.  Miller,  ....  “ 

Jas.  Wiggins, .  « 

Henry  O’Neill,  ....  “ 

Geo.  Silver, .  « 

James  Spence,  . . « 

Hugh  Carlisle,  . .  « 

The  Rev.  Wm.  S.  Owens, . Indiana ,  Pa. 

D.  Chesnut,  Pittsburg. 

Henry  Martin,  .........  Cincinnati. 


The  name  of  the  President  nominated  was  greeted  with  hearty 
cheers,  and  the  vote  being  taken  by  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee, 
Mr.  Brunot  was  unanimously  elected.  After  the  applause  had  sub¬ 
sided,  the  President-elect  arose  and  spoke  as  follows  : 

When  called  upon  to  perform  any  labor  or  stand  in  any  position,  and  the  call 
came  to  him  to  do  his  duty  as  a  Christian,  he  had  never  answered  “  No.”  When 
requested  to  serve  as  presiding  officer  of  this  Convention,  he  had  urged  that 
some  one  better  fitted  for  the  position  might  be  chosen  in  his  place.  But  it 
had  been  judged  best  for  him  to  occupy  the  chair,  and  he  had  consented  so  to 
do.  And  now,  upon  his  election  to  the  presidency  of  the  National  Associa¬ 
tion,  he  felt  like  yielding  to  some  other  one,  better  qualified  to  stand  at  the 
head  of  this  movement.  But  when  made  the  choice  of  this  Convention,  he 
would  not  hold  back.  He  was  proud  to  stand  in  this  relation  to  this  move¬ 
ment.  Though  somewhat  advanced  in  years,  he  expected  to  live  to  see  our 
cause  triumph.  God  never  puts  a  truth  into  the  hearts  of  men  without  giving 
also  the  power  which  will  sooner  or  later  make  that  truth  victorious.  In  con¬ 
clusion,  he  thanked  the  Convention  for  their  very  kind  toleration  of  the  manner 
in  which  he  had  presided  over  its  deliberations. 

Hie  Convention  then  adjourned  sine  die ,  with  prayer  and  the 
benediction  by  the  Rev.  E.  B.  Miner,  D.  D.,  of  New  York. 


CONSTITUTION 

OF  THE 

NATIONAL  ASSOCIATION. 


Sensible  of  the  vast  influence  of  a  written  Constitution  in  molding  the  character  of  a  republican 
people;  believing  that  our  National  Constitution  is  seriously  defective  in  that  it  contains  no 
acknowledgment  of  Almighty  God  as  the  source  of  civil  power,  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  who  is 
the  ruler  of  Nations,  or  of  the  supreme  authority  of  God’s  moral  laws;  discerning  that  in  its  present 
form  it  leaves  the  government  which  it  establishes  without  'political  obligation  to  observe  the  Sab¬ 
bath,  or  maintain  any  other  religious  forms  in  our  civil  life,  feeling  that  it  has  a  powerful  tendency 
to  draw  the  Constitutions  of  the  several  States  to  its  own  likeness  in  this  respect,  and  so  to  remove 
every  legal  basis  for  the  maintenance  of  religious  education  in  our  schools,  and  for  the  enforcement 
of  Christian  morality,  We,  citizens  of  the  United  States,  do  hereby  associate  ourselves  under  the 
following  Articles,  and  do  solemnly  pledge  ourselves  to  God,  and  to  one  another,  to  labor,  through 
wife  and  lawful  means,  to  secure  such  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  as  will  remedy  this  defect 
and  indicate  that  we  are  a  Christian  Nation. 

ARTICLE  I. 

This  Society  shall  be  called,  “  The  National  Association  to  secure  the  Religious  Amendment  of 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.” 

ARTICLE  II. 

The  object  of  this  Society  shall  be  to  obtain  such  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution  of  the 
LTnited  States  as  shall  suitably  acknowledge  Almighty  God  as  the  source  of  all  power  and  authority 
in  civil  government,  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  the  Ruler  of  Nations,  and  the  revealed  will  of  God  as 
of  Supreme  authority  in  civil  affairs. 

ARTICLE  III. 

All  persons  approving  this  Constitution  and  paying  to  the  Treasurer  the  sum  of  not  less  than 
one  dollar  annually,  shall  be  members  of  this  Society. 

ARTICLE  IV. 

The  officers  of  this  Association  shall  be  the  President,  Vice  Presidents.  Corresponding  Secretary, 
Recording  Secretary  and  Treasurer.  The  Secretaries  and  the  Treasurer,  with  twenty-one  other 
members,  shall  be  the  Executive  Committee  of  the  Association,  any  five  of  whom  shall  be  a  quo¬ 
rum.  All  the  officers  shall  be  elected  annually. 

ARTICLE  V. 

The  means  employed  by  the  Society  to  secure  its  object  shall  be  the  circulation  of  petitions  to 
Congress,  the  holding  of  meetings  and  conventions,  the  dissemination  of  documents,  the  collection 
of  funds  for  its  own  treasury,  and  other  legitimate  methods  of  forming  public  sentiment  and  influ¬ 
encing  the  action  of  the  government. 

ARTICLE  VI. 

Any  Society  adopting  a  Constitution  which  places  it  in  harmony  with  the  aims  of  the  National 
Association,  and  contributing  annually  to  the  funds  of  the  Association,  shall  be  recognized  as 
auxiliary,  and  all  members  thereof  shall  be  members  of  the  National  Association. 


TRACTS,  DOCUMENTS,  &c  , 

In  behalf  of  the  Religious  Amendment  of  the  Constitution 

of  the  United  States. 

“  CHRISTIAN  STATESMAN”  TEACTS. 

No.  1.  OUR  NAT  TONAL  OBLIGATION  20  ACKNOWLEDGE  GOD.  By 
J.  II.  Mcllvaine,  D.  D.  Price,  1  cent. 

No.  2.  .THE  RELIGIOUS  DEFECT  OF  TILE  UNITED  STATES  CONSTI¬ 
TUTION.  By  E.  R  Craven,  D.  D.  Price,  1  cent. 

No.  :t.  THE  BIBLE  IN  OUR  COMMON  SCHOOLS ;  Superintendent  Weaver’s 
Decision  examined.  By  the  Rev.  D.  McAllister.  Price,  3  cents  ;  40  for  $1. 

No.  4.  OUR  LEGITIMATE  ANTAGONISTS.  By  the  Rev.  T.  P.  Stevenson. 

No.  5.  ANSWERS  TO  OBJECTIONS.  By  the  Rev.  D.  McAllister. 

AN  APPEAL  TO  THE  VOTING  CITIZENS  OF.  THE  UNITED  STATES. 
By  J.  Edwards,  D.  D.  Price,  1  cent. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NATIONAL  CONVENTION,  held  in  Cincinnati,  Jan¬ 
uary  31st  and  February  1st,  1872.  Pamphlet  edition.  88  pp.  Price,  25  cents  each;  8  for  $1. 

PROCEEDINGS  OF  THE  NEW  YORK  CONVENTION.  Pamphlet  edition,  94pp. 
Price,  25  cents  each;  8  for  $1. 

Address  THE  CHRISTIAN  STATESMAN, 

38  N.  16th  Street,  Philadelphia,  Pa. 

Or  the  REV.  D.  McALLISTER,  410  W.  43d  Street,  New  York. 


THE 


CHRISTIAN  STATESMAN, 

A  WEEKLY  JOURNAL 

Devoted  to  the  Cause  of  Pnhlic  Morals  and  National  Religion. 


EDITORS: 

Rev.  T.  P.  STEVENSON,  Philadelphia.  Rev.  1).  McALLISTER,  New  York. 

EDITORIAL  CONTRIBUTORS :  ! 

Prof.  J.  li.  W.  SLOANE,  D.D.,  Allegheny,  Pd.  Rev.  JAS.  P.  LYTLE,  Sago.  Oli  o. 

Rev.  S.  F.  SCO Y EL,  D.  D.,  Pittsburgh,  Pa.  Rev.  J.  C.  K.  MILLIGAN,  New  York. 

Rev.  JONATHAN  EDWARDS,  D.  D  ,  Peoria,  III.  R-v.  D  B.  WILLSON,  Allegheny,  Pa. 

Rev.  D.  McFALL,  Oil  City,  Pa, 

- - 

The  design  of  Ibis  paper,  as  its  name  suggests,  is  the  discussion  of  the  principles  of  civil  gov¬ 
ernment  in  the  light  of  Christianity.  It  has  been  established  to  advocate  the  proposed 

RELIGIOUS  AMENDMENT 

to  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States.  At  the  same  time  it  will  aid  in  maintaining  all  existing 
Christian  features  of  our  civil  institutions;  in  particular,  Laws  against  the  Desecration  of  the  Sab¬ 
bath,  the  Christian  Law  of  Marriage  and  Divorce,  the  use  of  the  Bible  in  the  Public  Schools,  and 
Laws  prohibi  mg  the  traffic  in  intoxicating  drinks.  As  a  measure  fundamental  to  all  these,  it  will 
labor  for  the  adoption  of  such  amendments  to  the  National  Constitution  as  will  indicate  that  this  ^ 
is  a  Christian  nation,  and  will  place  all  Christian  Laws,  Institutions  and  Usages  in  our  government 
on  an  undeniable  legal  basis  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  nation. 

We  select  the  following  expression  of  the  favor  with  which  the  CHRISTIAN  STATESMAN 
has  been  regarded  b>thosebest  qualified  to  judge  of  i's  worth: 

From  Prof  TATTLER  LEWIS. 

Although  I  have  written  a  few  articles  for  the  Christian  Statesman,  that  shall  not  prevent  a 
frank  expression  of  my  opinion  respecting  the  skill,  ability  and  truthfulness  with  which  it  has  been 
conducted.  In  no  paper  in  our  land  do  we  find  so  full  and  clear  a  discussion  of  the  great  principles 
which  must  underlie  our  own  and  all  other  political  systems.  This  gives  it  great  value  as  a  literary 
and  philosophical  storehouse  of  ideas,  aside  from  that  most  important  question  of  the  “  State’s 
moral  character  and  accountability,”  which  it  was  establLhed  to  advocate.  It  is,  too,  remarkably 
fair  and  truthful.  These  qualities  make  it  deserving  of  the  patronage  of  every  thinking  and  culti-  l 
vated  mind,  aside  from  individual  concurrence  in  all  its  views.  TAYLER  LEWIS. 

During  the  five  years  of  its  publication,  the  Christian  Statesman  has  contained  articles  of 
rare  and  permanent  value  from  some  of  the  most  eminent  writers  in  the  country.  Prof.  Tayler 
Lewis  has  been  a  constant  and  frequent  contributor  to  its  columns,  and  articles  on  State  Neutrality 
in  Religion  Impossible.  Lynch  Laic ,  The  One  Bible ,  The  State  ordained  of  God.  The  State  a  Moral 
Power  ',  The  State  Theology ,  besides  many  others,  have  appeared  from  his  pen.  Prof.  Seelyc,  of  i 
Amherst,  has  written  on  Laws  and  Law-Making ,  and  Dr.  Patterson,  of  Chicago,  lias  directed  his 
vigorous  logic  against  Communism  and  its  theory  of  Public  Education. 

The  Statesman  has  also  contained  thoughtful  and  seasonable  discussions  of  the  Sabbath  Ques¬ 
tion,  in  its  various  aspects,  the  Relation  of  \ the  Bible  to  Public  Education,  Temperance  Legislation, 
Marriage  and  Divorce.  The  Chinese  Question.  Romish  Aggressions  in  America,  Prison  Reform,  The 
Peace  Movement,  Political  Corruption,  etc.,  beskL  s  careful  discussions  of  passing  events  in  the 
light  of  the  Christian  religion. 

Judicious  selections  from  the  writings  of  the  highest  authorities  on  the  subject  of  National 
;  Religion  have  been  a  prominent  feature  in  its  pages. 

Full  news  will  he  given  of  the  movement  to  secure  the  Religious  Amendment  of  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  United  States,  including  complete  reports  of  Conventions  held,  addresses  delivered,  the 
formation  of  Auxi!iary  Societies,  etc. 

All  matters  of  general  religious  interest  shall  he  more  or  less  fully  discussed  in  our  columns, 
and  a  special  feature  of  the  paper  will  he  full  and  accurate 

Summaries  of  News, 

endeavoring  to  record  all  events  as  they  appear  to  those  “  anointed  eyes”  which  sec  in  the  world 
Christ’s  kingdom,  and  in  all  human  affairs  the  workings  of  His  providence. 

A  judicious  selection  of  Miscellaneous  Reading  will  make  the  paper  generally  attractive. 

Terms :  $2.00  a  Year  in  advance.  Four  Months  on  trial,  50  Cents. 

Address,  THE  CHRISTIAN  STATESMAN. 

No.  38  North  Sixteenth  Street,  Philadelphia. 


PHOTOMOUNT 

PAMPHLET  BINDER 

pat.  no. 

877188 

Manufactured  by 
GAYLORD  BROS.  Inc. 
Syracuse,  N.  Y. 
Stockton,  Calif. 


■  a.  :  ••  :•  * :  ••  § 

♦Tv  Wr  iit%‘wZ  ,  - 


DATE  DUE  2 

1  * — »*— 1 

wri . . . 

» 

CAYLOKO 

raiNTIO  IN  U.S.A.I 

JK170  .1873 

Proceedings  of  the  National  Convention 

Princeton  Theological  Seininai^-^j^r^l^brajy 

1  1012  00059  4533 


